Strangers in a Strange Land
The GOP Commentariat Discovers Southern Evangelicals
By Leon H Wolf Posted in 2008 | Mike Huckabee | religious bigotry — Comments (101) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »
Before the election season began in earnest, the conventional wisdom was that this election would illustrate that the Republican base really doesn't like Mormons. Instead, it turns out that this election has taught us that the Republican vanguard really doesn't like Southern Evangelicals. For proof of this fact, one only need examine the hysterical reaction to Mike Huckabee's comments on the constitution:
[Some of my opponents] do not want to change the Constitution, but I believe it's a lot easier to change the constitution than it would be to change the word of the living God, and that's what we need to do is to amend the Constitution so it's in God's standards rather than try to change God's standards," Huckabee said, referring to the need for a constitutional human life amendment and an amendment defining marriage as between a man and a woman.
Some Republican commentators have become so unglued by the prospect of a Presidential candidate daring to suggest that he allows his faith in God (and the principles which, in his own mind, flow from that faith) to inform his political desires, that they have pronounced that Mike Huckabee is a man to be feared every bit as much as a man who thinks that the Taliban should be given the keys to this country.
This is, of course, rubbish, and the criticism thus expressed says much more about Mike Huckabee's critics than the above-quoted unfortunate turn of phrase says about Huckabee.
Read on...
Now, I will first say this: Mike Huckabee could have conveyed his point in a much more artful fashion. Huckabee is clearly the best communicator in the GOP field, but he still doesn't seem to have learned that in the course of a Presidential campaign, a whole different level of scrutiny will be applied to every statement you make. Further, not all of your opponents (and certainly not the press) will give you the courtesy of placing your words in context when they use them to attack you. So, I *do* wish that perhaps he would have illustrated his point in a way that was not so open to attack. And yet, I feel compelled to defend the thrust of Huckabee's point from attackers on the right who have suddenly become enamored of the rhetoric of the left, at least as applied to Huckabee.
What Huckabee has done, very simply, is dare to suggest that his religious principles inform his political views. Further, he has dared to suggest that the will of God is definite, and is at least to some degree, ascertainable by humans, and that humans are to some degree capable of conforming themselves to the word of God. What sort of backward-thinking rubes believe and think this way? Allow me to introduce Mike Huckabee's critics to a group known as "Evangelicals." For future reference, the vast majority of these people actually believe that the word of God is inspired and infallible, and is to some degree subject to correct interpretation by individual Christians. For further reference, and I know this will be shocking to some of you, these "Evangelicals" believe that the word of God applies to all facets of their life - that it is not merely binding when they are in a church building. This will be a struggle for some of you to accept, but these "Evangelicals" believe that the word of God should inform the way that you conduct yourself at your work, when you are socializing, when you are at home, and yes, when you are voting.
I have smelling salts handy if anyone needs them at this point.
Of course, in reality, this principle only bothers aspects of the GOP elite commetariat when it's Southern Evangelicals who are allowing a larger value system to shape their view of politics. Would Rick Moran object so strenuously if a Presidential candidate said, "I support the right to homosexual marriage because I am a humanist"? Almost certainly, he would not. Would Andy McCarthy liken a person who said, "I oppose socialized medicine because of my belief in the power and efficiency of the free market" to the Taliban? I dare say the answer to that question is "no". The reality, of course, is that everyone's political preferences are informed by a larger worldview, and certain sectors of the GOP commentariat are only bothered in this case because one of those Jesus Freaks has gotten loose onto the national stage, and he's embarrassing their cosmopolitan sensibilities.
These people have inexplicably embraced John Kerry's justly-mocked explanation for his position on abortion, i.e., that because he believed as a religious matter that abortion was wrong, he could therefore not believe that as a political matter. This ridiculous explanation was laughed at by many of the same people who are now mocking Mike Huckabee - and it has never occurred to the mockers that that they have embraced the major premise in Kerry's argument... at least insofar as it is applied to Southern Evangelicals.
This notion - that it is impermissible for a man's faith to dictate his voting or political conscience - would have been laughed at by virtually all (if not all) of the prominent conservative thinkers of the last two centuries. Were Burke, Chesterton, or Kirk alive today, no serious conservative would dare to suggest to them that a man must leave God behind when entering public life, for fear of being justly rhetorically beaten about the head by any of these men. And yet, we are confidently assured that all responsible "conservatives" will condemn Mike Huckabee's rhetoric and his vision of the world. Here is a free tip for all who are of this mind: secularism plus free-market capitalism is not the sine non qua of conservatism. They may, in your view, be good things, but please don't hijack an extant philosophy and distort it to suit the needs of the moment. That these commentators would attempt to do this with a philosophy known as "conservatism" is especially ironic.
I would further say to those who have shown such disdain for Mike Huckabee and what he believes in that the Jesus Freaks are not just going to go away because you make fun of them. I mean, they might leave the party (in which case, good luck cracking 30% in the next few elections), but you'll find that sincere belief in evangelical Christianity is a sturdy enough phenomenon to survive generations of your disdain. It so happens that there is a very significant overlap between what these evangelicals want to accomplish and what many free-market secularists want to accomplish. Certain free-market secularists have apparently decided that the areas that do not overlap are dragging the party down, and therefore the people who hold to them must be jettisoned, in the theory (I guess) that eventually evangelical Christianity will just go away, or at least that evangelical Christians will stop trying to live according to their beliefs.
My hope is that this election - if nothing else - having introduced you to Southern evangelicals, will disabuse you of that notion. No one should be a stranger to over half the people in his own voting bloc.
« Dueling June Obama fundraising claims? — Comments (2) | Debunking Bill — Comments (4) »
Strangers in a Strange Land 101 Comments (0 topical, 101 editorial, 0 hidden) Post a comment »
there is some merit here. The dirty little secret is that this revulsion is quite common among more mainstream Republicans, who want Evangelical votes but don't want to be associated with them after Election Day. My opposition to Huckabee stemmed from his policies, not his beliefs, yet I would support him before anyone on the Left.
You are both right and wrong here, though:
What Huckabee has done, very simply, is dare to suggest that his religious principles inform his political views.
I think the pander factor loomed large as well. Huckabee is perhaps the best communicator of the GOP lot, so he chose the words "Constitution" and "God's standards" to be incendiary as possible.
Still, this is a good blog and one that needed to be written. I hope at some point religious bigotry of all stripes, even that against Southern Evangelicals, ceases.
"more mainstream Republicans"
At least in the rural South, these are the mainstream Republicans. You'd be hard-pressed to find many that don't fit this mold.
I'm not a Huckabee supporter, but I've said it before. The way in which his candidacy is being killed is going to damage the party tremendously. A good number of his supporters are going to feel that his candidacy was killed off precisely because he was a Southern Evangelical who dared to suggest that his religious views would inform his political decisions. And those voters are going to be gone, at least for this election.
Media self-importance aside, the only way his candidacy is actually going to be "killed off" is because enough primary voters don't vote for him. Which, yes, I agree will happen, but only because most people don't agree with statements like the one he made on amending the Constitution to fit his version of God's truth.
the only way his candidacy is actually going to be "killed off" is because enough primary voters don't vote for him.
I only wish this was true. Unfortunately, Fox News and the "conservative" media establishment (ie Talk Show Hosts) have an out-of-proportion influence on the votes of the GOP "base". When you've got a one-man 527-group like Hugh Hewitt running a three-hour commercial for Mitt Romney every day and letting his callers to the dirty work of spreading the most horrific lies about Huckabee and McCain, you can be it has an effect. Of course, Hewitt never fails to repeat how Huckabee and McCain are great Americans but terrible Republicans. He's very careful about saying anything bad directly about either man, but makes sure his heavily-screened callers are ready to supply the ugliness.
A day's going to come when we wish we had a real "fair and balanced" media instead of the echo chamber of Fox News. I know it's out of style at the moment to be anything but totally and stubbornly partisan, but drawing lines in the sand has gotten us in the mess we are in today.
There's a lot of butt-clenching going on among the cynical party leaders who waved their Jesus flags in 2000 in order to get George Bush past the post, as they realize that those fundamentalist evangelicals actually expected something in return for their support.
I'm not a Huckabee supporter, but I've said it before. The way in which his candidacy is being killed is going to damage the party tremendously. A good number of his supporters are going to feel that his candidacy was killed off precisely because he was a Southern Evangelical who dared to suggest that his religious views would inform his political decisions. And those voters are going to be gone, at least for this election.
No, no, no: Huckabee is doing this to himself and if, at the end of the day, the Republican coalition dies, it will be entirely Huckabee's blame. Take Leon's example. Huckabee says something that even Leon concedes is kinda really stupid. As well as something that, taken literally, is going to drive off everyone who is not an evangelical fundamentalist. So Leon pens a long essay explaining that Huckabee didn't actually say stupid thing X, but really was implying much-more-reasonable thing Y, and, hey, evil elites and wishy-washy moderates, you're to blame for taking Huckabee at his word.
Please.
Leon is not the candidate. Huckabee is. Huckabee deserves to be taken at his word. Those words are playing directly to Huckabee's narrow base among evangelicals, creating a Huckabee boomlet where those evangelicals are strong. But they are destroying the Republican coalition, because the Republican party -- much less the electorate -- does not mostly consist of evangelicals.
von
p.s. I recognize that every candidate misspeaks, but come on. This happens all the time with Huckabee, who's more interested in playing to a narrow base than trying to connect with the rest of the party. Huckabee could be trying to build bridges to reaching out to fiscons, classic liberals/libertarians, and defense conservations. Instead, he is going out of his way to make it eminently clear that either (1) he's not interested in my support or (2) he's an idiot. There's no way this guy is getting my vote. (Recall that when Huckabee said something absolutely idiotic about Bhutto and Pakistan, Trevino rushed in to explain that Huckabee's views are really something different. How many times does Huckabee have to be defended from his own words and views?)
For we have a peculiar power of thinking before we act, and of acting, too, whereas other men are courageous from ignorance but hesitate upon reflection.
It's not opposing Huckabee. I oppose Huckabee myself. I'm not sure I could bring myself to vote for him in the primary.
But the sheer venom with which people have gone after him is the problem. The comments that just drip with disdain and contempt. Because for a large chunk of the South, when people see Huckabee, they see themselves, or people they know well and like.
And some of those people are going to take these attacks personally. What I'm trying to say is that without those people, the Republican Party loses, badly. So oppose Huckabee, yes. But when he's called a Huckster, that's insulting, and drives away those people.
And when he's attacked for admitting that, yes, as a Christian his religion will affect his policy decisions, those people will be thinking "of course he should do that". And then those people are driven away. Quite a bit of the discourse on Huckabee veers very close to 'religious people should stay home and shut up'. And that is what we need to avoid.
But the sheer venom with which people have gone after him is the problem. The comments that just drip with disdain and contempt. Because for a large chunk of the South, when people see Huckabee, they see themselves, or people they know well and like.
That of course makes sense; the problem is that a certain percentage of the Republican and Republican-leaning voter looks at Huckabee with the same level of disdain and disgust as the stereotypical evangelical voter regards Rudy. Just as it's tough for an evangelical to not go ballistic on Rudy (on occasion), it takes serious restraint to avoid pulling out the adjective book with Huckabee. (Although I hope that I refrained in the post above.)
And that's one of the things that are most troubling about this primary: You have three candidates -- Huckabee, McCain, and Rudy -- who disgust a significant number of R voters. I suppose that's why the so-called elite rallied early to Romney: they probably saw this mess coming.
(Full disclosure: I'm an R-leaning classic liberal who has long supported McCain. As long-timers will tell you, I am not beholden to the party or platform.)
For we have a peculiar power of thinking before we act, and of acting, too, whereas other men are courageous from ignorance but hesitate upon reflection.
I am no Republican elite but I am very disturbed by Huckabee's claims that the same power the fed the 5,000 explains his surge in the polls, by his holding up a bill because it used the legal term of art for natural disasters (acts of God), and that he is saying the Constitution should be revised to conform to his understand of the word of the living God.
I don't have a problem with an evangelical view of bringing one's faith into all aspects of one's life. (Is there a religion that doesn't think this?) I didn't worry about his gates of hell blather toward Iran after not knowing where it is, and haven't worried too much about the pandering to us poor folk at the beginning of a recession. But when Huckabee's inflammatory rhetoric belies a degree of sophistication along the lines shown in "Jesus Camp," and presumes to write over with marker what was put carefully inscribed by the likes of Madison, Jefferson, Adams and Washington, shouldn't that terrify just about everyone?
This is idiotic and false hyberbole--"presumes to write over with marker what was put carefully inscribed by the likes of Madison, Jefferson, Adams and Washington."
First, Huckabee proposes amending the Constitution according to the Constitutionally prescribed method. Although I fear this is too obvious for you, that is hardly inconsistent with the Constitution or the ideals of the Founding Fathers to amend it in the method they envisioned and provided for.
Second, I also would be interested in knowing exactly which part of the Constitution you believe a human life amendment and an amendment defining marriage as between a man and a woman would "write over?" Article and section, please.
The problem with Huckabee is that he's not just talking about specific amendment proposals. He's channeling the Jesus Camp agenda of taking over the country for Christ. While the response that has everyone up in hackles was raised in the context of a question about a human life amendment, the response itself blitzkriegs over the entire thing. If you're worried about compatability of the proposed amendment with the rest, you're ignoring the larger point. Prohibition was a stupid amendment that cheapens the value of a Consitution as detached from moral issues of the moment. Human life is the issue du jour; tomorrow it will be the rights of hybrid species and Martians or whatever. The fundamental issue is that Christian identity folks claim to love the Constitution so much they need to revere it by deforming it and by challenging the principles of judicial review. Clumsy handling of course strains the delicate nature of the document, and leaves us with a system much more subject to legislative and popular politics. Activist judges are not the biggest threat to Constitutional democracy. Ironically, their opponents are, especially the most rabid.
you secretly want Al Qaeda to attack us again.
Hmm... ascribing random and irrational motives to others *is* fun and easy, Neil. You're right, I should have tried it earlier.
------------
The Red Sox Republican: Burkeanism, Baseball, and Sundries.
The constitution guarantees rights and not limits them. The courts then rule accordingly to the framework and adjusts for the changes (lest I say evolution) in the social and political fabric.
The amendment that actually tried to prohibit a behavior was prohibition (19th amendment). The main force for prohibition came from pietistic Protestants, who comprised majorities in the Republican party in the North, and the Democratic party in the South (Wikipedia) in the years leading up to 1919. This amendment was so successful that the day it was repealed America sang out in joy. The President had a drink in the Oval Office. Your super bowl beer is now available in cold six packs on Sunday (after Church of course)!
The Constitution does not prevent religious people from following their own religious rules, but it does not allow any one from imposing their rules on others. Both words in the phrase "God's law" can be interpreted differently by many religions (maybe even GODs law for our Hindi friends). That should begin to instill the meaning and ideas used by the founders in framing the Constitution and escpecially the first amendment. It is to keep religious tests out of government and allow people of different faiths to live within their own laws. The laws against murder, rape, theft are actually legislated and not part of the constitution, they are perfectly valid within the framework.
One final note... same sex marriage is not what they want. They want the protections that marriage provides to insurance, health care, power of attorney, survivorship etc. I am sure they couldn't care less if the marriage is sanctified by a holy man or if God approves. So everyone just get a grip and stop listening to the emotional BS.
Focus America Focus.... There are bigger issues... much bigger issues.
Funny how the same people trying to cram a radical redefinition of marriage down our throats, are the same ones often claiming it's not a big issue.
We're not the ones who chose to make marriage a battleground. It's the radical homosexual activists and their marxist-feminist allies who have done so.
___________________________________________________________
Disclaimer: I am a member of a state-wide executive committee that is affiliated with Governor Mike Huckabee's campaign for the GOP presidential nomination
Was that shoving things down your throats?
Are they forcing you onto the proverbial battleground?
Man is free at the moment he wishes to be. --Voltaire
issues of "Full Faith and Credit" with Canada.
____
CongressCritter™: Never have so few felt like they were owed so much by so many for so little.
So the answer is something like "I don't mind if Xs get married in (State) so long as they aren't considered married if they move next door to me and my family"?
Man is free at the moment he wishes to be. --Voltaire
state legislature to pass the appropriate law.
Conservatives simply want to prevent a court somewhere from making stuff up.
the Constitution as a document for checks and balances in government. The real problem is that nobody bothers to 'check' the judicial branch for overstepping its boundaries. When was the last time the Supreme Court was sued by the Legislative or Executive branch? Or a Supreme Court Justice impeached? There are laws and principles defined to do just that but there is no political will. So we get demagoguery like that of Huckabee to get votes...knowing full well none of the promised amendments will or can get passed.
Err, remember the California state legislature did pass the law so your criteria was already met. It was Arnold who vetoed it from being enacted...
"Second, I also would be interested in knowing exactly which part of the Constitution you believe a human life amendment and an amendment defining marriage as between a man and a woman would "write over?" Article and section, please."
In the first place if changing the Constitution is necessary to fulfill the needs of a cause, i.e., a Human Life Amendment and a Marriage Amendment, then such changes would constitute the writing over of something in the Constitution...otherwise no amendment's are necessary.
Secondly, these sorts of social amendments usurp the separation of powers doctrine as delineated by Articles I, II and III of the Constitution.
Thirdly, the form of government practiced in the US encourages that the policies of the Chief Executive be informed by inalienable and natural rights (granted by God) as outlined in the Declaration of Independence but not even the most pious patriot believes the Constitution is the Word of God and therefore necessitates conformance to specific principles and policies believed by certain subsets of the population to be God's Word.
That's why Huckabee is the most frightening of politicians.
The HLA could not violate Articles I, II and III any more than the 13th and 14th Amendment did (and I don't believe they did). If the states refuse to protect the life, liberty and property of the nation's citizens residing therein then the feds will have no (other correct) choice but to do it for them. Everything after that point the states can experiment with.
Please stop lumping the HLA with FMA (yes, Mr Prichard I know you didn't start it). They are two dramatically different concepts.
"Hey, I call 'em like I see 'em. I'm a whale biologist."
When I think HLA I think Hogan ammendment. Are you saying there is a FMA that simply returns marriage to the states and that is similar to the other non-Hogan HLAs? If not, I think using the feds to define marriage is overkill. I don't see a need to go that high, and I don't buy the argument I've been fed by some that "What happens when one state won't recognise your marriage?" All I can think is "And this affects what? Your taxes? Hospital visitation?" I don't see an urgent need to have one national marriage definition. Don't get me wrong, I'm a traditional Catholic all the way (and a windbag considering I can't type less than 300 characters), but I just can't see it being such a hot issue that the states can't deal with it on their own.
"Hey, I call 'em like I see 'em. I'm a whale biologist."
I'm interested in your novel theory that a human life amendment or an amendment defining marriage as between a man and a woman would "usurp the separation of powers doctrine. You do know that the separation of powers doctrine has to do with checks and balances between the executive, legislative, and judicial branches of government. Will the Legislative now run roughshod over the executive? Perhaps such an amendment will risk a dictatorial executive? Perhaps you care to elaborate how your comment makes any sense whatsoever?
I can make fun of your other points but let's start with the silliest one of the three first and see how things go.
we MUST have a Marriage and anti-abortion amendment because the Judiciary is governing (as in Massachusetts) or could conceivably govern by judicial fiat. The separation of powers doctrine, having to do as you say with checks and balances, is apparently not working according to those who want these social amendments. Maybe they're right to a point as certain penumbras such as a 'right to privacy' are distorted to include the absolute right of choice for abortion.
However, if judges are stepping out of the Constitutional mandates and legislating from the bench it is imperative that the legislative and executive branches 'check' and 'balance' through impeachment or sanction. By and large this isn't happening, AT ALL. To answer your point, creating amendments in order to provide a check and balance, already Constitutionally mandated, usurps the separation of powers doctrine, and indeed overrides it. The proper solution is to elect legislators and executives willing to check and balance the judiciary.
"No compromise with the main purpose, no peace till victory, no pact with unrepentant wrong." - Winston Churchill
.. a politician arrives at his decisions. I care about his decisions, period.
When we will learn that looking into a politician's "core" rarely serves as a prediction to their future opinions and political action?
Religion can be whatever you want it to be. A solid foundation, and/or justification for whatever behavior you choose.
Skepticism of a politician's religious credentials and beliefs is no more a sin than being skeptical or critical of that politician's policy arguments, especially when that politician rationalizes their process with their religious beliefs.
What's so complicated?
And by the way, I don't really care to know or understand my "voting block",whatever that is supposed to mean.
Mike Huckabee loves to throw around generalities, and this statement is no exception:
"[Some of my opponents] do not want to change the Constitution, but I believe it's a lot easier to change the constitution than it would be to change the word of the living God, and that's what we need to do is to amend the Constitution so it's in God's standards rather than try to change God's standards"
The problem is, there's nothing in the Constitution that's against God's standards, not as far as I've read both of them. Certain judges, mind you, have twisted the Constitution to promote policies that aren't, but the solution to that problem is not to change the not-broken Constitution, but to nominate, and fight for, judges that take the Constitution literally.
I really would like to hear from Mike Huckabee what parts of the Constitution he thinks are not up to God's standards. If Mike somehow manages to claim the GOP nomination, you can bet your bottom dollar that our opponents will trumpet this quote to mean that Mike Huckabee wants to change the Constitution to mandate everyone attending church on Sunday and all kinds of things along those lines. That's not the kind of mudslinging war we can win.
---
Finrod's First Law of Bandwidth:
A picture may be worth a thousand words, but it takes the bandwidth of ten thousand.
There are many valid reasons that Huckabee's statement was ill-advised, and you've hit on several of them. My point is that the "he's no different from the Taliban!" nonsense is out of line.
------------
The Red Sox Republican: Burkeanism, Baseball, and Sundries.
___________________________________________________________
Disclaimer: I am a member of a state-wide executive committee that is affiliated with Governor Mike Huckabee's campaign for the GOP presidential nomination
in order for it to meet God's standards? As Finrod says, there is nothing in there that is against His standards. In some ways, Huckabee is buying into the leftist notion of a godless Constitution.
I don't believe that many if any of Huckabee's conservative political opponents believe that faith should inform one's political views, but Huckabee's rhetoric goes beyond the line of having one's faith merely inform their political views.
Sorry, that should read "I don't believe that many if any of Huckabee's conservative political opponents don't believe that faith should inform one's political views."
First comment on Red State in over a year and I'm already correcting myself. Great.
My issue with his statement is that he implies that there is only one correct interpretation of "God's standards." Huckabee may well believe that to be the case, but he would be president of a country in which people hold varying beliefs about God and His standards. American Muslims, Jews, Buddhists, and non-evangelical Christians, all of whom have equal citizenship in this country, may not agree with Huckabee's version of what God thinks or wants.
Amending the constitution is a perfectly legitimate thing to do, provided people follow the constitutional process to do so, but I frankly can easily understand why a presidential candidate's non-specific pledge to do so in accordance with his own interpretation of God's standards would raise hackles.
Moreover, Huckabee can't have it both ways. He can't keep complaining that his critics keep bringing up his religion when he himself continues to not only do so but to make it clear that it will be a fundamental building block of his means of governance. I understand that politicians' beliefs inform the way the govern, and that's fine, but then it's also okay for others to discuss his religious beliefs when debating him, interviewing him, and the like--since they clearly will tie into his political decisions.
of "God's standard." That would be God's interpretation. It is up to the rest of us to study the evidence and get as close to it as we can. I think the Bible has done a very good job of that.
I know this will come as a surprise to some, but 'winning this country to Christ' has been an objective of Christians since the country was founded. In fact, many of the founding fathers and architects of the US Constitution wrote it the way they did so people would be free to do so.
Hopefully, before it's too late, evangelicals as a group will make the distinction of agreeing with what Huckabee says in these areas, but understanding that he would not make a good president for us.
Leon's point is valid. Attacking Huckabee because of his religious statements drives those who agree with those statements to him. That is not what we want. However, Huckabee attacking the Club for Growth is also not helpful in the same way and drives fiscons away from him. I would rather we all be attacking marxist liberalism and the democratic candidates who champion that religion.
Its the particular religion. The thought of a pastor becoming president and then rewriting the constitution to his particular interpretation of holy writ is frightening. I mean really frightening. Huckabee does nothing to calm the fears either. With that statement he has energized the liberal base more than any other single statement ever could. He has undone years of work by the party to prove that we aren't the caricatures libs make us out to be.
I expect the press to start fawning over him. As he is now completely unelectable in the general.
______________________________
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777
We can't win in the general with a candidate like Mike that keeps handing our opponents ammunition to fire back at us-- and not small caliber, either, I'm talking the nasty incendiary types that get fired at a thousand rounds a minute.
---
Finrod's First Law of Bandwidth:
A picture may be worth a thousand words, but it takes the bandwidth of ten thousand.
---
Finrod's First Law of Bandwidth:
A picture may be worth a thousand words, but it takes the bandwidth of ten thousand.
For we have a peculiar power of thinking before we act, and of acting, too, whereas other men are courageous from ignorance but hesitate upon reflection.
Great comumn.
"The thought of a pastor becoming president and then rewriting the constitution to his particular interpretation of holy writ is frightening. I mean really frightening..."
Excuse me, but presidents don't get to rewrite the constitution. They can get elected on certain platforms and then note to Congress that the election gave them a mandate which should be considered by people wanting to keep their phony baloney jobs. If a marriage or pro-life amendment is passed is because of overwhelming support in both Houses of Congress and the state legislatures.
Yes to what you have to say but whats the point ?
Huckabee is talking about rewriting the constitution (A stupid, stupid, stupid thing to do in the first place) thats what people are hearing and its what's making him look like a dangerous demagogue.
______________________________
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777
"...presumes to write over with marker what was put carefully inscribed by the likes of Madison, Jefferson, Adams and Washington, shouldn't that terrify just about everyone?"
The specific amendments Huck mentioned are to overrule a tyranny of judges, who believe the constitution contains, by virtue of penumbras of emanations that only they can see, writ that happens to accord precisely with their own political views.
This country passed three amendments to the constitution (the 13th, 14th and 15th) in as many years overturning the Dred Scott decision. Overturning the Supreme Court when it has horribly overstepped its authority has a noble history.
The inscribed writing you refer to specifically included the ability to change the constitution, because as Madison noted, new forms of tyranny are always a danger, and we the people need to be able to deal with them.
"The specific amendments Huck mentioned are to overrule a tyranny of judges, who believe the constitution contains, by virtue of penumbras of emanations that only they can see, writ that happens to accord precisely with their own political views."
Isn't it ironic that righties claim judges should be strict constructionists, unless of course they obviously err "by virture of penumbras of emantions that only they can see, writ that happens to accord precisely with their own political views"(?), which of course necessitates that these judges be prevented by further error by tacking on clarifications to the Constitution whose integrity righties claim to protect? Add to that their lust for presidential disregard for Marbury v. Madison and that's exactly why Huckabee's comments are so frightening. I love the Constitution more than others, which is why I must protect it from godless judges by emasculating judicial review and by marking the Hell out of it...
Of course, we want judges whose jurisprudence is based on a strong standard of originalism (not strict construction). That is why we don't want judges who rule based not on the Constitution, but on their own preferences. Can you deny that this is happening? If so, I think you are on the wrong site.
If you love the Constitution as much as you claim, start defending it and that includes defending it against those judges who rule in complete disregard to it as well as those scary Christians.
I don't have a problem with countering activist judges. I have a problem with countering them by resorting to Constitutional so quickly. Most of this can be handled by going further up the review chain, by writing new legislation, by carefully appointing good judges. Keep tacking on amendments and the validity of original intent erodes. I thought that was pretty obvious.
comumn. (n) com UHM A misspelled column.
Leon, I think you grossly misstate the debate within the Republican community here. I don't see FisCons or DefCons calling for evangelicals ("SoCons") to be "jettisoned" from the Republican ranks.
What I do see, which you completely ignore, is Gov. Huckabee and his followers attempting to either jettison or "redefine" fiscal and defense/national security Conservatism.
I'm not going to go into the Governor's record in Arkansas or his many disturbing statements and proposals (some of which have been conveniently changed recently, now that it's do-or-die time in the Southern primaries) during this race. I think that's been documented well enough, and you can choose to acknowledge that or not.
I also agree with an earlier commenter - the Constitution is fine by God's standards (in my book). What would Huck change? The problem isn't the Constitution, but activist judges rewriting it from the bench.
But what do I know, maybe I just need some Metamucil or whatever Huck's newest sophomoric gag is.
"Do your duty in all things. You cannot do more; you should not wish to do less" - Robert E. Lee
PS. People wouldn't be so anxious about a quote like this from Huckabee if it was a one-time thing. But he tries to have it both ways, playing the holier-than-thou card ever so slyly then accusing other people of bringing up religion. That's the rub.
"I don't see FisCons or DefCons calling for evangelicals ("SoCons") to be "jettisoned" from the Republican ranks."
I see it all the time.
He retells the story of country club republicans asking him what he is going to do about those pro-lifers every so often. They are real.
"Hey, I call 'em like I see 'em. I'm a whale biologist."
Joliphant,
If the objection is how he said it, I agree. Remember, though, they will twist anything around no matter how it's phrased.
"[W]hat we need to do is to amend the Constitution so it's in God's standards rather than try to change God's standards."
That's a direct quote. And such a quote would be devastating in the general election.
I would add he is also saying it with a considerable amount of sincerity. In Huckabee's case though who can tell. I have given up trying to discern what his real positions are.
______________________________
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777
As a libertarian nutball, it seems to me that the Socons have a belief similar to something like this:
"I believe that, someday, I will have to stand before God and explain to him why I lived the way I did, which will include why I voted the way I did. I would rather have to explain why I voted for people who might raise taxes on this group or that group than why I voted for people who killed babies."
I would like to point out that this is an exceptionally principled position.
Like most exceptionally principled positions, it is far, far too easy to paint people who have a different principled position as people who are unprincipled.
Man is free at the moment he wishes to be. --Voltaire
___________________________________________________________
Disclaimer: I am a member of a state-wide executive committee that is affiliated with Governor Mike Huckabee's campaign for the GOP presidential nomination
"Hey, I call 'em like I see 'em. I'm a whale biologist."
How do you amend the Constitution to get it in line with God's Standards? Huckabee really knows how to disrespect the 1st Amendment, the very same Amendment that allows him to preach his religious beliefs period.
I for one think amending our Constitution should only be done when it is just so important and I know some will disagree but amending it to ban Gay Marriage, Flag Burning, or Passage of a "Human Life Amendment" or whatever they call it, is a ridiculous idea. One only has to look to the Prohibition amendments to see why you don't amend the U.S. Constitution for such issues like that.
If we were to go down Huckabee's road our Constitution will quickly diminish in importance as we could just amend it to fix everything we don't like. We are a Constitutional Republic NOT a Christian Democracy.
A Human Life Amendment is a triviality? WOW. It's precisely this attitude from "mainstream" Republicans that has me considering Huckabee, because even if they say they're pro-life, I know in their heart of hearts, it just doesn't matter to them.
I personally wouldn't suggest voting that way, but it does cheese me off equally to hear the HLA constantly equated to FMA or other more trivial issues. It is almost like a wilfull ignorance when it comes to understanding that we believe to be murder.
Joliphant and mbecker made a good point to me about it though on another thread: the HLA could suffer a bigger defeat for the pro-life movement if implimented today. They pointed to the history of the Equal Rights Amendment and how that same fate could be the same fate as the HLA which would actually set us back. While it does irritate me to no end to hear the HLA derided or equated to "imposing religion", I do wonder if it might be strategically a bad option now. Perhaps just waiting for the SCOTUS to overturn it and let the states do their own thing might lead to a cultural shift that would make the HLA more palatable in the future. (And before anybody asks, I'm talking Hogan amendment).
"Hey, I call 'em like I see 'em. I'm a whale biologist."
You do Not amend the Constitution to satisfy a cultural or emotional issue. A Correct, I emphasize Correct, reading of the Constitution already protects the sanctity of life because there is No Constitutional right to an Abortion, even though SCOTUS has ruled the opposite but still it's not in there.
If we amend the Constitution for this then what else do we amend it for? Would the Equal Rights Amendment then be resurfaced?
FYI, if we ratified the HLA and then the ERA, guess what, liberals would say the ERA Actually supersedes the HLA because Section 1 of the ERA says "Equality of rights under the law shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of sex."
To liberals the ERA is permitting a woman the right to choose whether or not she can have an abortion and I would be willing to be liberal judges would agree with that reading of the ERA as a way out of the HLA.
But I don't think "is No Constitutional right to an Abortion" means that no state can legalize it. Even the 14th Amendment states that equal rights goes to those already born. If you take that literally (which I sure many pro-aborts would), then I'm sure they could make the claim that the constitution doesn't prohibit them from legalizing it somewhere.
I don't consider it a "a cultural or emotional issue" any more than I would consider infanticide (which is what I think it is) as such. Would you consider genocide a "a cultural or emotional issue"? If not, then what are the moral differences between mass infanticide and genocide? Note: I'm not asking why you think abortion is different from genocide. I've made clear that I like many others perceive abortion to be infanticide and don't really want to debate that because my point is that for those who believe it is infanticide it rises above the level of a "a cultural or emotional issue".
So while many like myself can be practical and try to find incrimental ways to stop abortion, it isn't really a matter of reducing it as much as it is a matter of stopping it everywhere just as much as anybody would want to stop genocide everywhere and not simply reduce it.
I agree that people could make the argument that if we get the HLA then maybe they should get the ERA... I don't think that is a logical argument, but I admit some would try to make the case. The "what else might get ammended" argument would have to be properly thought out I suppose.
"Hey, I call 'em like I see 'em. I'm a whale biologist."
The ways the 14th Amendment has been read to be honest constitute a whole other debate because it was never written the way so many (liberals) think it was written.
It's really a question of who has what power, I don't think we should amend the Constitution for such a hotly debated issue like this for really 2 reasons:
1. The needed number of states to ratify it within a certain time period are not there, even actual Red-States that went for Bush in 00 and 04 still have Democrat governors, or hold majorities in the legislature, they don't want to lose their jobs on election day by supporting ratification. and
2. There has to be some respect given to the 10th Amendment, If the Southeast wished to legislate a ban on abortions I think they are well within their rights to do it the same for whether or not CA should have a law permitting the use of medical marijuana, I don't support the usage of it, but CA should have the right to make their own laws on this matter.
Thats my beef, I would just rather we amend the Constitution for only the direst of circumstances and your argument is persuasive but I just disagree.
Joliphant and mbecker pointed out the probable demise of the HLA could lead to setting back the pro-life movement a lot in another thread. I agree now is not the time for that kind of action. And I agree that we would do better to try and change the culture until there was more of a consensus or it would be absolutely viewed as one region flexing its power over another.
"Hey, I call 'em like I see 'em. I'm a whale biologist."
Your first argument is largely circular: we don't have the power to amend the constitution, therefore we should not amend the constitution. While I think one can legitimately argue about the strategy and tactics to achieve an amendment and whether attempting to do so might be counterproductive ini the long term, it makes no sense to argue we should not have an amendment because, policitcally speaking, we can not enact the amendment.
Especially when you are running for a civic office. Yet again another great contrast to Romney, who while being very religious, only touches upon the common themes of our Judeo/Christian heritage. Huckabee is trying to desperately draw the evangelicals to his banner, at the expense of pushing away everyone else.
"Go ahead, make your jokes, Mr. Jokey... Joke-maker. But let me hit you with some knowledge. Quit now". -White Goodman
Precisely my thought. I don't disagree with Huckabee about wanting to reflect God's standards in what I do, but doing it the way he is is obviously a) meant to appeal to the evangelical voting bloc, and b) really ticking off the rest.
The Unofficial RedState FAQ
“You are not only responsible for what you say, but also for what you do not say. ” - Martin Luther
is the Huckster's presumption that only he among the candidates knows what "God's standards" are.
He is a fraud.
That there is this much opposition to Huckabee's constitutional ideas on REDSTATE should tell you just how well he and they would go over with the general voting public in November.
If RedState's readers accurately reflected the senitment of the "general voting public," then Fred! would already have the GOP presidential nomination in the bag.
___________________________________________________________
Disclaimer: I am a member of a state-wide executive committee that is affiliated with Governor Mike Huckabee's campaign for the GOP presidential nomination
the general voting public, they don't want a preacher turning the GOP into a Christian Democratic Union and spreading populism throughout the land while running our economy right into the ground all the while claiming he raised Hope and letting murderers and rapists go free.
We prefer either the Vet, Fred, or the Guy Who Laid You Off because he understands free market capitalism.
It's really quite obvious that bigotry towards Southern Baptists is the issue.
The basis on which he is criticized is ludicrous.
He's mocked for appealing to evangelicals in Iowa...yet Romney not only spent Millions to convice Iowans that he's "actually a conservative", but he also panders to the auto workers in Michigan by promising Federal intervention in the form of a $20billion bailout, calling it "investment in innovation".
Really? Auto companies don't have massive R&D and Innovation operations--why that's shocking.
And reagrdless, for every conservative "heresy" he has been guilty of, there is an equal if not larger sin by the accusing opponent and/or supporters thereof.
Huckabee says he wants to amend the Constitution based on his own religious beliefs. THAT is the issue. It doesn't matter if the candidate is a Baptist (I didn't even know that was his religion), a Catholic, a Methodist, a Pagan, Jewish, or Hindu, someone telling the country he'd like to amend the US Constitution based on his personal interpretation of God would be a red-flag raiser no matter what.
Huckabee a victim of religious bigotry? You can't run on an evangelical identity ticket and then cry that others persecute you for your faith if they object.
The contrast with Romney on this is also pretty amazing, and really the difference as someone else pointed out. Romney is just trying to get people to stop looking at his religion. Huckabee's running as Pastor-in-Chief. I know what's better for the long-term health of both their respective religious movements and the country, and it's not rendering that which is God's to Caesar.
When he tells the NY Times that Mormons think Jesus and Satan are brothers or offends Catholics by going and preaching at John Hagee's church and has no problem taking money from Hagee who IS a religious bigot for saying Catholics were incahoots with Hitler during WWII. There are a ton of things to disagree with the Catholic Church on but that crap he spews is utterly despicable.
I guess getting the Constitution in line with God's Standards also means voiding out that whole "No Religious Test For Public Office" bit. America needs a Commander In Chief Not a Pastor in Chief.
My two cents on why I think Huckabee's statement makes a lot of people uncomfortable -- although to compare him to the taliban is ludicrous. Huckabee is suggesting that he wants to amend the Constitution to reflect "God's standards." Huckabee is not saying that he believes the position is correct because it is moral or in the best interests of the Country (whatever may inform that view). He is saying we should do it because it is "God's standard." The disassociation of the standard from himself is what makes people nervous.
In contrast, I don't think -- and I certainly wouldn't take it the same way -- if Huckabee had said something like the following: "Though my lifetime of study and introspection, certainly guided by my Christian teachings, I have come to believe that all life is sacred and that life begins at the moment of creation. As a result, I feel morally compelled to fight for a constitutional amendment banning abortion." In that case, he is taking this position not because his religion tells him to, but because he is convinced it is the right decision. He is taking personal responsibility for the position.
In some ways, Huckabee is playing into the fears that people had when Kennedy ran for president. The question then was, would the Vatican tell the White House what to do. Huckabee is practically telling people that as president he will take positions as dictated by the Evangelical church. You may say it's unfair, but not really shocking.
No one knows what will happen, but it is time Republicans who don't support Huckabee (this includes me) came to grips with the fact he very well could be the nominee.
Those snide Pastor in Chief comments beautifully illustrate my point that this is about Southern Baptist bigotry.
GW Bush had a radical spiritual transformation in his life.
The now famous response of who was the most influential person "Christ...because he changed my life." was an honest reflection of Bush's inner core of who he is...and an appeal to Evangelicals, blatantly, and it was perfectly fine.
But when Huck demonstrates the same devotion to his core beliefs despite his accomplishments as Governor of Arkansas (regardless of how you judge them)...he is still mocked as "Pastor-in-Chief"/Jesus Freak and told to quit pandering to evangelicals.
He is just as much engaged in discussion with every political issue on the table ( and maybe MORE than any other candidate) and uses the political advantages that are at his disposal.
"Romney is just trying to get people to stop looking at his religion"
Really? So Romney's "Religion in America" speech (that he threw out as his numbers dropped in Iowa trying to reach evangelicals) was just a speech he just happened to feel like giving?
His personal biographer/radio pitch man/internet blogger titles his book "A MORMON in the White House.." to lay the groundwork for a bigotry defense when any scrutiny to a religion that is on the fringe of American society is brought forward...in essence not being open about it, but using a liberal tactic of name calling to silence any questions.
Huckabee is out in the open about what he believes and does not hide behind cowardly name calling to keep the questions away.
If you're going to use a book to advertise being a mormon, you'd better be ready for scrutiny.
The Jesus and Satan brothers thing...I'm glad he did it.
As an evangelical I had no idea that's what they believe and as a believer it is a heresy and it's no different than the "wives be in submission" type questions he gets all the time. If you're going to advertise your religion, be ready to back it up...if you have a hard time doing it, it's your burden to bear.
any scrutiny to a religion that is on the fringe of American society is brought forward
My problem with this type of thinking is that it is not Mitt Romney's job to speak for the LDS (Mormon) Church. Nor do I, as a member of his church, want him to be the spokesman for what we believe. I don't think it is bigotry to question the tenents of my faith, or even to disagree. Mitt Romney might not explain every point of doctrine but the LDS Church does. And that is where the discussion should stay. It doesn't belong in a presidential politics forum. I also don't think that the wife submission question was particularly relevant to the debate.
As to the Jesus and Satan comment. The LDS Church put out a statement here, clarifying what the Church actually teaches. I also think that there are serious backlashes in the Mormon community to the type of anti-mormon things that Huckabee (and his supporters, especially the ones he condemns) are doing. I am attaching a link to a comment made in regards to Huckabee winning the nomination. While I don't agree with everything this poster says, I think that there are a lot of LDS people who feel very similar to him.
Another thing to note is that Mormons have never had a hard time voting for an evangelical or any other faith.
"The city of Provo, Utah tops the list of the twenty-five most conservative cities in the United States....Provo’s religious background, small town feel, and large Caucasian population all combine to make it the most conservative city in the United States. Analysis of current voting data shows that 86% of registered voters in the city voted for Bush or other third party conservative candidates..." source
"But when Huck demonstrates the same devotion to his core beliefs despite his accomplishments as Governor of Arkansas (regardless of how you judge them)...he is still mocked as "Pastor-in-Chief"/Jesus Freak and told to quit pandering to evangelicals.
He is just as much engaged in discussion with every political issue on the table ( and maybe MORE than any other candidate) and uses the political advantages that are at his disposal."
Either way it's exploiting his Christianity to get elected, in contravention of the spirit of Article VI.
SBs should avoid looking at the negative reaction as persecution.
but loses if you keep focused on his stance on the issues. He wants to make this about his Christianity because people vote with their hearts, not with thier heads. When all things are said and done, the evangelical voting block is the largest coherent voting block in the Republican party. If you make them vote for Huckabee because they think they are defending Christianity he will win.
To stop Huckabee, we need to stop attacking his religion and attack the idiotic policy statements he makes, and he makes plenty of them.
Its one thing to take a mocking tone on some of Huck's economic and foreign policy statements, but he does take his faith seriously and any attack that goes anywhere near his faith is just going to solidify his support.
If I worked for Huck (I'm not), and if I was into dirty politics (I'm not), I would stage/plant/setup an attack on his religious beliefs so that he spends all day Friday defending his Christian beliefs.
If timed right, he would could win SC in a landslide.
Leon's article expressed well how we are wrong to attack Huckabee on the basis of religion. You boiled his article down to one cogent point.
If you think the Founders were Conservatives or supported Conservative values, then this will help explain why Huckabee's religious commentary runs counter to their wishes:
James Madison, June 20, 1785
Because we hold it for a fundamental and undeniable truth, "that Religion or the duty which we owe to our Creator and the manner of discharging it, can be directed only by reason and conviction, not by force or violence." [Virginia Declaration of Rights, art. 16] The Religion then of every man must be left to the conviction and conscience of every man; and it is the right of every man to exercise it as these may dictate. This right is in its nature an unalienable right. It is unalienable, because the opinions of men, depending only on the evidence contemplated by their own minds cannot follow the dictates of other men: It is unalienable also, because what is here a right towards men, is a duty towards the Creator. It is the duty of every man to render to the Creator such homage and such only as he believes to be acceptable to him...
...the establishment proposed by the Bill is not requisite for the support of the Christian Religion. To say that it is, is a contradiction to the Christian Religion itself, for every page of it disavows a dependence on the powers of this world: it is a contradiction to fact; for it is known that this Religion both existed and flourished, not only without the support of human laws, but in spite of every opposition from them, and not only during the period of miraculous aid, but long after it had been left to its own evidence and the ordinary care of Providence. Nay, it is a contradiction in terms; for a Religion not invented by human policy, must have pre-existed and been supported, before it was established by human policy. It is moreover to weaken in those who profess this Religion a pious confidence in its innate excellence and the patronage of its Author; and to foster in those who still reject it, a suspicion that its friends are too conscious of its fallacies to trust it to its own merits.
I track the Saudi-backed expansion of extremist Wahhabi Islam
http://wahaudi.blogspot.com
Wanted freedom from a state religion, not freedom from God in our daily lives. I am by no means a religious zealot, but Huck was governor of a liberal state for 10 years despite his faith. Last time I checked, Arkansas did not have a Church established by Huck.
This idea that a wall exists between our community (local, state, and federal) is a fiction the founding fathers did not support. No prayers in school (had them back in the day). No religious symbols in the town square (had them back in the day). No candidates preaching their faith (even Lincoln and Jefferson cited God).
We have rights from a Church sponsored by the AMerican government (although I am sure an agency will be created in our lifetime), and we can practice religion freely. But there is no freedom from our spirituality in our daily lives on the off chance we offend others.
That was created by the Warren Court 60 years ago.
Did you even read what you quoted? It is an argument against a state established religion. Huckabee does not support a state established religion. You are buying into liberal talking points and extrapolating the Constitutional prohibition against state established religions into an argument for eradication of religion completely from public life, even to the extent that it should inform a candidate's moral beliefs. This is impossible unless we basically have a state established religion of secularism, which seems to be what you want.
My hope is that this election - if nothing else - having introduced you to Southern evangelicals, will disabuse you of that notion. No one should be a stranger to over half the people in his own voting bloc.
Show them who's the boss, South Carolina!