After Iowa: Where Do Identity Politics Go from Here? And Other Thoughts

8 Responses to “After Iowa: Where Do Identity Politics Go from Here? And Other Thoughts”

1. HaroldHutchison on 04 Jan 2008 at 12:21 am #

   “No Mormons Need Apply” is the message that has effectively been sent out by the GOP activists when it comes to the Presidency. It’s patently obvious when you look at what Joe Carter told you and what was reported on Huckabee’s official site.

   We will see this happen in South Carolina as well - the Mormon-baiting has been plentiful from Cyndi Mosteller and Huckabee will use it again as well - after all, Iowa has just proved that it works.

   The politics of religious identity has trumped perhaps the best resume/track record on the GOP side. That is how it is.

   It may be time for me to re-think my affiliation with the GOP.

2. David H. Sundwall on 04 Jan 2008 at 10:38 am #

   Utah doesn’t exactly have its own Mormon Huckabee. That article discusses then-Gov. Leavitt who is now Sec. Leavitt at HHS.

   Back when he was governor in Utah, he had private scripture study sessions with aides on how to better communicate policy.

   I won’t defend that as it still may sound creepy but there was never any public invocation of scripture or Mormon morality. I think it’s a far cry from what Huckabee does.

   I just wanted to clarify that the article wasn’t about the current Utah governor.

3. saran on 04 Jan 2008 at 11:46 am #

   I am a new reader to this blog - love it so far - someone who is putting things in one place.

   I have to say that the Huckabee/Romney thing has brought my focus back to the ‘08 campaign from the “glazed-over, bored” feeling of indifference I’ve had. Both have made my blood boil at one point or another.

   Have either of you heard about this film? Article VI: Faith, Politics, America http://www.articlevithemovie.com/ Would be interested in your insights about it. It looks to be something that is doing just what you’re doing - delving into the relevancy and impact of Article VI on the ‘08 election and Americans today.

4. Authenticity on 04 Jan 2008 at 1:27 pm #

   What we missed was the individual effects from Huckabee’s successful transition from strict identity to the broader David/Goliath establishment argument. This not only intensified the us vs. them schism, but effectively leveraged the Romney ad campaign to their own ends, galvanizing the notion that “Huck’s in trouble” and we owe him our support. Simply put, his very human story arc trumped the issues arguments, and it should have been foreseen and diffused by the Romney camp.

   In the end, let’s also realize that it took a relatively small percentage of Romney’s lukewarm Evangelical support to turn, as every conquest percent widens the apparent gulf by twice that margin.

5. Ralph on 04 Jan 2008 at 2:00 pm #

   John and Lowell:

   The original purpose of Article VI Blog, as I understand it, was to fight the tendency in this Presidential election to impose a faith test for the Office of the Presidency, in particular to combat the argument that Mitt Romney’s Mormon faith somehow disqualified him. And, indeed, Mike Huckabee has engaged in some swarmy tactics to remind voters that his most serious opponent in Iowa was a Mormon.

   However, that is a very different proposition from “identity politics,” the very real phenomenon that voters tend to identify with a candidate who shares important aspects of their own personalities, philosophies and outlook. I suspect that Huckabee would have commanded as large a following among Iowa evangelical Christians even if he had never engaged in any Mormon-baiting. Those Iowa voters took a good look at Huckabee and Romney and decided that they identified more and were more comfortable with Huckabee.

   Indeed, I would argue that the lack of voter identification with Romney had as much to do with his super-successful life story as it did with his religion. Mitt Romney has succeeded at nearly everything he has ever done. He was born into privilege, he concurrently earned business and law degrees from Harvard, he made millions in business and he became governor of Massachusetts (hardly an identity factor for Iowa voters). His life does not remotely resemble theirs. He does not talk or look like them any more than does Al Gore or John Kerry.

   Huckabee on the other hand was born into poverty and his campaign biography emphasizes his triumph over over-eating. The Iowans looked at him and saw themselves, and voted accordingly.

   Frankly, that is so much a fact of life that I don’t think you can make a principled objection to it. It explains why voters loved Bill Clinton but don’t like Hillary Clinton. It explains why Hillary Clinton does well with one demographic group–older well-educated women. It explains why Obama will be able to garner much of the African American vote.

   And frankly, Lowell, it explains why so many Mormons are working for the election of Mitt Romney. Yes, I know (and indeed have written on our blog) that not all Mormons are conservatives or Republicans, but it cannot be denied that many, many Mormon Republicans back this particular candidate because he is a Mormon Republican. One can’t criticize identity politics when practiced by evangelical Chrisitians but ignore it when practiced by Mormons.

   Identity politics becomes a problem when it leads to the election of unqualified candidates, or to the defeat of one’s party at the polls. That may yet be the case with Mike Huckabee. Nonetheless, railing against identity politics is like railing against the color of the sky. It just is.

6. fitzwdarcey on 04 Jan 2008 at 2:54 pm #

   “And in despair, I bowed my head. There is no peace on earth I said. For hate is strong and mocks the song of peace on earth good will to men.”

   Mike Huckabee said he would discuss his own faith but not the faith of other candidates. He then put out the loaded question of whether or not the CJCLDS believes that Jesus and Satan are brothers. There is no rational explanation for doing that especially given that he said he would not discuss the faith of another candidate. He never really got hammered for it. He apologized to Romney but to none of the other millions he offended or to the American people for his dishonesty. Romney was gracious and didn’t make an issue of it. In fact, many would call his behaviour, Christian. But wait, it is Romney that is the dishonest one.

   I am more sad than I can say reading the exit poll results and seeing the identity politics at work here. I really believed that America was better than this, and as a member of the LDS Church, I feel very shocked and very let down.

   There is a commenter on one Hugh Hewitt’s posts today that states that the Christian coalition is the most important part of the conservative coalition and that cultists are outliers. I am beginning to believe it is true, and I truly believe that will split the Republican party.

7. coltakashi on 04 Jan 2008 at 3:14 pm #

   The Iowa caucus demonstrates that the baloney attacks on Romney about alleged integrity shortfalls are no more than camouflage for fear of his religion. Voters don’t trust Romney because they don’t trust Mormons; all other candidates would be given the benefit of the doubt when they explain the reasons for their views, but Romney starts from a public perception deficit because of over a century of “Christian” ministers indoctrinating their members about the Mormon “cult”. They claim he is not honest because he will not admit that his church is a cult and he doesn’t really worship Jesus. If he claims he is a follower of Christ, they say he is lying. The problem is not with the integrity of Romney, but of the hatred and lies about Mormons that have become fundamental features of so much Christian discourse.

   The Iowa caucus results point out the political differences between Mormons and Evangelicals. While the LDS Church is “hierarchical” it studiously avoids taking sides on partisan issues; it is very conscious of being an international organization that cannot presume to direct or speak for its members in 175 nations, let alone in the US. On the other hand, the Southern Baptist convention recently issued another one of its anti-Mormon publications to ministers. Evangelical ministers seem to feel free to endorse or denigrate specific candidates, without fear of the IRS questioning their tax exempt status. A Mormon who tried to use his membership credentials to differentiate himself would be rejected by Mormons for violating church policy. A Baptist who trades on his identity as a pastor to win votes is considered just to be a smart politician.

   The part that is most distressing here is that so many people seem to have lost sight of how a political party is supposed to be distinct from a religious organization. It is supposed to be organized around common policy goals, a compact of mutual support to candidates who are pledged to support those goals if elected. The large block of voters in Iowa who supported Reverend Huckabee because of their identification with his religion have lost sight of what the political party is supposed to be about, an enterprise in inclusiveness that seeks to include a majority of people with disparate characteristics based on their common goals.

   When people vote for a candidate on the grounds that he is expected to enact government policies that advance one religious viewpoint over all others then they are in fact supporting theocracy. It is no different than Muslims in Afghanistan seeking to enact Islamic shari’a as their statutory law. It is theocracy, plain and simple.

   If they want to have a “Christian Party”, they should go off and do so, telling everyone that this is their goal. To hijack the Republican primary in order to advance the narrow concerns of one faction rather than the common interest of the party is fundamentally dishonest. It is indeed fundamentally un-Christian.

   It is just as un-Christian as a person trumpeting that he is literally “holier than thou” as a basis for being elected. That kind of vanity about righteousness was denounced as hypocrisy by Jesus. The hatred that Pharisees had toward the “heretical” Samaritans of their day was also denounced by Jesus as a violation of God’s commandment to “love thy neighbor”. While Michael Novak, a Catholic, is demonstrably aware of this, it appears that Evangelicals who worry about actually following Jesus are few on the ground in Iowa, and the news media are too ignorant of the Bible to notice and point it out in their stories. Newsweek can make hay in its cover story about Romney for not living up to their odd expectations of what a Mormon is supposed to be, but they don’t seem to have the foggiest notion how a real Christian is supposed to behave. They don’t understand the difference between a pastor who calls people to come to Christ, and a pastor who calls on Christians to follow HIM, the minister.

   Perhaps it is related to the fact that many Evangelical churches rely so much more on the personality of individual pastors rather than a body of common doctrine. In that way, Evangelical churches much more resemble their own definition of “cult” than Mormons do. Mormons attend the church they are assigned to on a geographic basis regardless of how boring a speaker the bishop is. Most of the sermons are given by random members of the congregation. You will get the same kind of median quality experience no matter where you attend Sunday meetings. Mormon loyalty to their church is not based on someone else’s personality, but on convictions about doctrines. So Mormons like Romney do not practice personal charisma in connection with their worship.

   The bottom line is that the Republican Party cannot win national elections by becoming the Evangelical Christian Party. Huckabee’s effort to convert the GOP into the ECP could serve to ensure defeat in the November elections, both for president and Congress. He is a divider, not a uniter.

8. CarlH on 04 Jan 2008 at 3:14 pm #

   Given some of the quirkiness of the Iowa caucuses–let alone the frequency with which winners there fail to go on to win nominations (and often even very few subsequent primary contests), the willingness of so many pundits to say Romney’s chances are gone is more than a little surprising. Part of what I think we are seeing is the “frontrunner effect” in which everyone else betters themselves by ganging up on the frontrunner, but that strategy has to be abandoned eventually.

   I agree with Lowell that it is not the result that is disheartening about the Iowa caucus, but how Huckabee emerged belatedly (unlike Robertson in 2000) and then parlayed the indentity politics–disingenuously denied–to a victory, with very little MSM scrutiny or condemnation of his tactics. I also share Lowell’s concern about where his campaign goes from here, especially in South Carolina in the immediate future and in much of the south and midwest thereafter, assuming that he continues to survive.

   Politically, I’m a constitutional and fiscal conservative first, a social conservative second, and a Republican third. (My LDS faith, as well as the religion of any candidate, is pretty much incidental). In Huckabee I don’t see much of a fiscal or constitutional conservative, despite his social conservative bona fides. More frighteningly, I worry that his campaign tack, if it continues to be as laden with religious rhetoric and divisiveness, may rupture the delicate alliance of social and fiscal conservatives that has given the Republican Party a coalition strong enough to contend with the Democrats. If Huckabee is, as Susan Estrich now famously said the other night, the “Democrats’ dream candidate”, he might just as easily become the Republican’s “nightmare candidate.” He–perhaps even more than Pres. Bush–could become the incarnation of the leftists’ cartoon caricature of the “religious right.” While Huckabee seems to have gotten a bit of a free ride about his religion-drenched campaign in Iowa, while the MSM continue to give him a pass, especially if the religious attack has indeed been successful in completely derailing Romney’s campaign? Hard to believe.

   For what it’s worth, among friends and other LDS voters whose reactions to the Huckabee boom and then victory in Iowa I’ve observed, there seems to be a growing anger that Mormon Republicans, who have pretty much seen themselves as a reliable and activist part of the “religious right,” have now been told that they’re not the “right religious right” with serious reservations about where their support ought to go–if anywhere. Having the MSM trash your religion day in and day out is one thing, it’s quite another to be expected to buck up and support someone in your own party who has made his name by playing on the trashing. Where will the Mormon vote go? From what I’ve seen the past two weeks, it will not go to Huckabee. McCain–with his own anti-Mormon shenigans–would also have a big handicap. Giuliani? Talk about having to hold one’s nose! Thompson, maybe? But does he even have a chance? Of course, having LDS voters sit out an election would hardly have the same impact as evangelicals sitting out an election, but the fallout will be interesting to watch.

Trackback URI | Comments RSS

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.