Huckabee, Romney, and The Question
As we note below, both John and I watched Mike Huckabee on Bill O'Reilly's show last night. Now, after a few hours of reflection, I've got some additional thoughts. The interview highlights the religion issue in a fascinating way: To a certain extent, the shoe is now on the other foot. What do I mean by that? Let's just discuss scenarios a little. Imagine that going forward, Governor Huckabee is repeatedly pressed on the question O'Reilly posed to him: Can a deeply religious person like Huckabee be elected president? Imagine further that the MSM and others press Huckabee on particulars of his own faith– what does he believe about creationism vs. evolution, the Rapture, the eternal fate of non-Christians, and so forth? How would Huckabee supporters react to that? For that matter, how will Southern Baptists generally react? I suppose they'll say Huckabee shouldn't be subjected to such scrutiny on a private matter like his religion. (I would agree with them.) They probably won't be saying, like some bloggers say about Mitt Romney, that Huckabee must explain his specific religious beliefs so voters can understand his "worldview." So if that reasoning applies to Huck, why doesn't it apply to Romney? Also consider this: Some conservatives (e.g. Ramesh Ponnuru) argue that Republicans must be pragmatic and avoid nominating someone like Romney because the prejudice against Mormons (regrettable though it may be) is a hurdle Republicans don't need in 2008. Does that same pragmatism hold true for Huckabee, whose only private sector job (I think) was as a Baptist minister? If not, are Mormons somehow more deserving of prejudice than devout Baptists? Imagine the discussion breaking down to the point where conservatives are arguing about which religions, if held by a candidate, warrant probing questions and intense scrutiny, and which do not. Would that not be horrible? And if we go there, haven't we descended into sectarian bickering that helps no one but liberal secularists? Just wondering. John chimes in while we are adding thoughts and wondering . . . Hugh Hewitt kindly linked to our post below and added his own thoughts:
I wrote at length about the dangers of theology as a guide to presidential qualifications and as a subject for close inspection by journalists covering candidates in A Mormon In The White House. One part of the argument was that demands on Romney to explain his LDS beliefs would set evangelicals and Catholics at the top of a very steep, very slippery slope. O'Reilly's interview questions confirms that my concerns were justified, and the slip down the slope begun.
Now, let's assume for a moment that the Huckabee boomlet is, as I have contended, the result of a "like me" bias floating out of the Values Voters thing. Part of that "like me" experience has got to be rooted in theology. Now people that would feel such an attraction are people like me – people who take their theology pretty seriously. So here is what I don't understand. In his correct dodge of O'Reilly's questions, Huckabee kept referring to traditional Christian as the truth "for him." Forgive me, but those are about as weaselly as theology words can get. Wrong as I think Romney's theology is (sorry Lowell), at least when he has to, he holds it forth as genuine truth, not this relativistic gobbledy-gook that flowed from Huckabee. And I really fail to understand why my Evangelical brethren would find that kind of weaseling attractive.
Posted in Electability, Religious Bigotry | Comment on this post » | 
Print this post
| 
Email This Post