Article VI Blog

Rising and Falling…

The Christian Post has been reliably skeptical of Romney throughout this political season due to his faith. But lo…

Presidential hopeful Mitt Romney seems to be gaining ground with the much sought-after evangelical community as he adds more Christian leaders to his growing list of supporters.

There is your rising. When you want your falling, John Fund writes about Mike Huckabee:

Mr. Huckabee attributes his support to the fact he is a "hardworking, consistent conservative with some authenticity about those convictions." He is certainly qualified for national office, having served nearly 11 years as a chief executive. I have known and liked him for years; on the stump he often tells the story of how we first met outside his boarded-up office in the state Capitol, which had been sealed by Arkansas Democrats who refused to accept he had won an upset election for lieutenant governor in 1993. But I also know he is not the "consistent conservative" he now claims to be.

And Pat Toomey piles on:

In some quarters, former Arkansas Governor Mike Huckabee appears to be the flavor-of-the-month Republican candidate for president. Given his folksy charm, social conservative credentials, and embrace by the mainstream media, it is not surprising that some are increasingly enamored with him. But this flirtation does a great disservice to the conservative movement if it overlooks Huckabee’s stunning record of big-government liberalism.

Here endeth that boomlet. Although, it has produced one of the funniest bits of sarcastic writing I have read to date on this subject, courtesy John Mark Reynolds. In the interest of fairness, we link to Huckabee's response.

I spoke on Friday about "like dissolving like." An attraction between Evangelicals and Huckabee is a natural. It is not unlike the phenomena that Mormons are working for Romney harder than they have worked before.

It has been analyzed before that there are two primary wings in the Republican party - social conservatives and fiscal conservatives. For the coalition between the two that is the party to function, we have traditionally nominated candidates that represent the best of both wings, we have engaged in that old political practice of compromise.

I do not think what we are seeing in the Huckabee boomlet is religious bigotry, at least not yet. It is attractive in nature not repulsive. No one is finding Romney wrong because he is Mormon, they are simply more attracted to Huckabee because he looks more like them. Bias, perhaps, but not bigotry.

Right now the question is more one of can the traditional compromise withstand these attractive forces? If it cannot, the party will weaken and bigotry will take root in the void created. That is dangerous, for if it does social conservatives will be the primary victims, not Romney.

I share with my Evangelical Brethren their impatience with the slow pace of reform with regards to the social agenda. But the journey to this point took decades, and teamwork. The journey back requires the same.

Lowell piles on too:

I liked this bit from Pat Toomey's piece:

In frontrunners Rudy Giuliani, Fred Thompson, and Mitt Romney, the GOP is well on its way to nominating a candidate for president with a strong fiscal record. Each of them would provide a great opportunity for the GOP to reestablish its vitally important brand as the party of pro-growth tax policy and smaller and more affordable government. But no Republican presidential candidate can effectively claim that mantle with Mike Huckabee standing by his side.

Putting it simply: I hope the bias John identifies (correctly, I think) does not cause an important slice of the GOP electorate to go chasing after Huckabee just because he's a devout Southern Baptist. Something tells me that before that happens, reality will pull them back toward either Romney or Giuliani. And along those lines . . . Hugh Hewitt and Fred Barnes are calling this a 2-man race, and they don't see Huckabee as one of the two. Barnes' view of Huckabee is particularly bracing for Huck fans.

Wishful thinking or bitter reality…

That's the question about this from the WSJ (subscription may be required)

Still, evangelicals have clearly lost their enthusiasm for the GOP. A recent poll by the Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life paints the picture: "Throughout Bush's first term, party identification among younger white evangelicals remained relatively stable, but since 2005 the group's Republican affiliation has dropped significantly — by 15 percentage points." The study notes, however, that "the shift away from the GOP has not resulted in substantial Democratic gains." In short, evangelicals seem adrift.

This development does not bode well for Republican turnout during next fall's presidential campaign. And who can place a value on that?

The New York Times joined the chorus with a lengthy piece titled:

The Evangelical Crackup

One is tempted to respond with, "It is the primary, silly person!" — We are supposed to do some infighting. As discussed above, there is much yet to be figured out in all this. And there is much of that going on here. But that is a tad bit dismissive of some real forces at play.

The tension between the two primary wings of the Republican party are real and have been for a long time. That's old news. The lack of a candidate that, on the surface, can unite the wings is a problem, but only a temporary one. Romney looks to me like that guy, but he has to overcome the bias and he has to get better known before the natives will quiet down. Both are things he can do, but they will be hard work.

Of course, some of this writing is the left trying to drive a wedge into a perceived crack in hopes of shattering the coalition leading to their own victory. That's normal for any election; they read the tea leaves and predict disaster for the opposition.

The key question is do Evangelicals want to overcome their natural and understandable bias to unite behind an apparently less than perfect candidate? The question is not a straightforward one, because many of the forces at play in Evangelicals are spiritual ones, not political ones. Many are forces that cry, correctly in my opinion, that politics have displaced the proper mission of the church. Now, if you think about it, such forces winning the day will free the politics of the religious labeling and that will naturally overcome the bias, but that is a hard process, and one that could hurt the political force while restoring the spiritual one.

It is definitely premature to declare death to the Evangelical political movement, but it is changing. I believe I commented early on in this blog that the Evangelical political movement had almost everything at stake in this election cycle. They can grow up into a smart political movement, or they can throw it all away in a fit of pique. I'm hoping, even praying, for the former.

Elsewhere…

Oh, please…. There is enough real bias against Romney's religion to have to try and cook something up out of vapors. This is a new low.

This is the most laughable headline in the history of this blog:

Mormon unspoken issue for Romney
Rarely discussed, faith may affect some voters

But things only get worse in the lead:

As major Republican presidential candidates jostle to stay atop the polls, one issue almost never is mentioned by rival campaigns, and rarely even when voters chat among themselves about the contenders:

Mitt Romney's Mormon faith.

Clearly, this headline writer and story writer have read NOTHING that has been written about Romney in the last year and one-half. They are trying to make the point that there is "whispering" going on out there, but in my experience, only when Democrats want to take a shot, or when reporters ask. Besides, an opposing candidate that tried to make an issue out of it would automatically disqualify themselves, like oh…I don't know…John McCain?

Ross Douhat goes somewhere no one ought to go in this kind of discussion. "Who's the better Mormon?" is just not a game for politics any more than "Who's the better Evangelical?" You know, I think our shared scripture may have some admonition about such talk.

Lowell: Scripture aside, one simply has to roll one's eyes at the banality of Douthat's idle speculation about a subject with which he is clearly and woefully unfamiliar.

Oh look, someone did all the same research a bunch of other someones have done before. Well at least there are footnotes.

This, on the other hand, is the least original piece written on the Romney campaign in a couple of months. But, it must lead with religion, it cannot be a Romney story unless it leads with religion…ARRRRGH!

Ugly, just ugly.

You know, we have a high school intern (Three cheers for Asher the Intern!) that helps us out with this blog. Thank goodness, he is a lot smarter than this guy.

Sphere: Related Content

Posted in Reading List | No Comments yet » | Print this post | Email This Post