Is It Down To Pure Politics?
…Based on how little religion based material there is out there, the answer to the headline question is “getting there.”
I have suddenly realized something sad about Michael Medved: He never was pro-Huckabee, as he appeared; I doubt he is now really pro-John McCain. What he has always been in reality… is an “Anybody But Romney” fanatic.
I now think he supported and defended Mike Huckabee only because Huckabee was Romney’s chief rival in Iowa; and today, Medved has become John McCain’s biggest fan only because McCain is Romney’s chief rival in New Hampshire. What’s sad is that there really is nothing in Romney’s background, proposals, or current demeanor that would justify such desperate opposition, except for the one possibility that I prefer not to think (but am starting to be driven to wonder about): religion.
He then goes on to cite the unresponsive nature of some of Medved’s advocacy for Huckabee and McCain, and his repeated appeals to Romney being a “liar.”
I do not know Michael Medved, but I do know people that know him. I also think the irony of a very serious Jew practicing religious bigotry would be difficult to swallow.
That Medved does not like Romney is obvious, but to put religion into the mix is reaching for straws. We have to be very careful not to see bigotry around every corner. Sadly the “Mormons lie” meme must be suffered to some extent. Calling candidates liars is a long and well worn political practice. Yes, in Romney’s case, that charge will ring a bell not applicable to any other candidate, but the set of people that will hear that bell is limited. There is little that can be done with that and the people that will hear the bell will not vote for Romney regardless.
To see religious bigotry around every opposition corner is to defensively define Romney by his religion, as much as anti-Mormon bigotry is to do so offensively. It should be avoided.
Lowell: I am a skeptic on this one. I know Medved has been very shrilly anti-Romney for some time, but I do recall a time when he was very hard on anyone who opposed Romney on anti-Mormon grounds. Moreover, every politically conservative Orthodox Jew I know (and Medved is Orthodox) is very friendly to Romney. That strain of Judaism recognizes the common values Romney shares with them and is unfazed by his heterodox Christianity. So it seems unlikely to me that Medved is concerned about Romney on religious grounds.
In The World Of Identity Politics…
Some are blaming Hillary’s NH victory on it. From OpinionJournal’s BOTWT:
Barack Obama might not practice identity politics, but he can’t stop others from preaching it. His loss to Hillary Clinton in New Hampshire has prompted talk of a “Bradley effect,” a purported phenomenon that dates to California’s 1982 governor’s election, which pitted Mayor Tom Bradley of Los Angeles, a Democrat, against Attorney General George Deukmejian, a Republican. Bradley, who died in 1998, was black; Deukmejian is white. Bradley led the polls, but Deukmejian won.
The Bradley effect posits that polls overestimated Bradley’s support because whites lied about their intention to support black candidates. A pair of 1989 elections in which black Democrats beat white Republicans by smaller-than-predicted margins–Douglas Wilder over Marshall Coleman for Virginia governor and David Dinkins over Rudy Giuliani for New York mayor–are also cited as examples of this effect.
The NYTimes is playing along with this meme as well. Identity politics is not pretty, is it. Here we see another example of playing it defensively.
In the end this is why identity politics just should not be in the discussion. The only place it can go is really ugly.
Speaking of…
We have contended all along that identity politcs were not smart. I have particular said they would get Evangelicals in trouble – labeled as dull, small-minded, etc. Well, check out this AP story. Apparently as Evangelicals we don’t really think about our vote.
Uh-Oh…
Resentment amongst Mormon voters is growing. This is bad news for Republicans – there are enough of them to matter in the general. See, I have always expected anti-Mormon sentiment from the left and such a force would make common casue between Evangelicals and Mormons and would have strengthened the religious right vote. But has Huckabee has been so up-front with things, it is splitting off several million of the religious right coalition. If this keep up the Mormon might just stay home voting day. Forget the “right and wrong” of all this for just a minute – that is flat out ignorant politics.
Lowell: The entire piece is worth reading. Here’s a taste:
Nobody seems to mind when former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee says his religion “defines me.” Or when Obama says his church guides “my own values and my own beliefs.”
People worry that Romney will take his orders from his church leaders. They don’t worry that Obama will take orders from his church, whose “10-point vision” includes two references to its “non-negotiable commitment to Africa,” with no mention of America. Oh, and the church statement begins by noting on the Trinity United Church of Christ Web site, “We are a congregation which is Unashamedly Black.”
It’s a different set of rules for some out there. You can print newspaper cartoons disparaging Mormons. You can harass their families as they walk to their biannual conference with all sorts of foul language. When someone commits a crime, you can note the criminal’s religion, but only if he’s Mormon. You can make them a one-liner on Leno. Good luck reconciling all this with the paranoid political correctness that’s so in vogue.
Lowell adds a post-script: This bit from a blog called Cynical Christian (?) is interesting:
Remember The Passion of the Christ, that movie about Jesus that caused such a ruckus a couple of years ago? If you recall, people got really worked up about it, both in good ways and bad. This was odd behavior, because it wasn’t the first movie based on the Bible story of Jesus, and I don’t think The Greatest Story Ever Told or Jesus Christ, Superstar had people running and screaming in the streets months before it was released.
What was different about The Passion was that it was made by somebody who took the story seriously. Say what you will about Mel Gibson, he genuinely believed in the transformative power of the story of Christ in a way that you never see in Hollywood. That made believers rally to him, and it made non-believers terrified of him.
I think evangelicals rally to Huckabee for the same reason. He speaks with authority and genuine conviction about the things that Christians care about the most. So, they will let a lot of stuff slide in order to support a guy who shares their beliefs. Heck, I want to root for the guy, and I’m as terrified of him actually winning the presidency as I am of anybody save John Edwards. Because, Christianity aside, he really is a populist.
(HT: InstaPundit.) Extending this thought a bit, maybe serious belief is just scary. If Mitt Romney did not take his religion seriously, maybe Evangelicals and others would be OK with him. If Huckabee were just a lip-service Baptist, maybe . . . well, then he wouldn’t have any support. Anyway, it’s a fascinating idea to ponder: Don’t take your faith seriously; it upsets people.
And finally, there’s this from Pursuing Holiness:
The conservative evangelicals who oppose Mike Huckabee, like myself, feel about him like southerners felt about New Coke. We are outraged and offended at what he’s doing to the product of conservatism. And like a lot of Coke drinkers, we’re not going to make the switch. Ever.
Read the whole thing.
Posted in Reading List | 7 Comments » | 
Print this post
| 
Email This Post
sjreidhead on 10 Jan 2008 at 8:48 am #
This is getting very, very nasty. I find remarkable the fact that the so called “Christian” right cries and wrings their hands for a “Christian” candidate. Huckabee shows up and does exactly what the “Christian” right has demanded. Now he is anti-Mormon, or so Romney cries.
Medved is quite correct on his facts. The big problem is the whole smoke and mirrors game Romney is playing. He (or rather his operatives) are pulling some very dirty things, or have pulled them. It is fascinating how he gets away with them by everyone crying anti-Mormon bigotry.
I suggest you check the archives of The Palmetto Scoop to find out just what is going on in South Carolina. I’ve been following his campaign antics at The Pink Flamingo.
Perhaps the problem is the fact that maybe Romney is the “wrong” Mormon. I’d vote for Orin Hatch or Chris Cannon in a minute. I think Mitt Romney is the GOP version of Bill Clinton, blowing in the wind looking to score points on which ever way the opinions are blowing. Maybe that’s why Michael Medved is after him.
SJ Reidhead
The Pink Flamingo
David H. Sundwall on 10 Jan 2008 at 9:40 am #
I have long listened to Medved and he’s not anti-Mormon. He’s been a consistent and informed defender of the Church although he obviously doesn’t share its teachings.
But he’s become downright hysterical and dishonest in his opposition to Romney. He’s endorsed McCain. He has intellectually contorted himself into a pretzel to defend both McCain and Huckabee, doing whatever possible to attack Romney.
He las lost all credibility as a pundit for me. It’s sad because I used to really like him but now he’s intolerable to listen to.
KnightReign on 10 Jan 2008 at 10:08 am #
One thing is for sure, Michael Medved has a lot of people scratching their heads wondering what his hidden agenda is.
I’ve been listening to Michael for years. I’ve bought his books, was a member of his website, and listened whenever the opportunity would arise. (I work for a living, so catching Medved in the middle of the day was always a challenge.) I knew Medved’s position on illegal immigration and by and large I agreed with many of the points of his position. No, we can’t just kick 12 million people out of the country in one fell swoop. But Medved has a place in his heart for immigrants. You just have to read his book “Right Turns” to understand why. So, it’s not something that bothers me. That, in all my years listening to Medved was the only thing about which I can remember disagreeing with him. But notice, I’m writing in past tense. The problem with Medved’s opposition to Romney is sort of like going against precedences. People who have been listening to Medved for years have come to understand that he has rational and logical positions born of rigorous thought processes. Yet, Medved’s positions against Romney bear no resemblance to his previous disciplined positions and seem even fanatical. That leaves many people, especially those who’ve listened to him for years wondering.
So, here are some reasonable and perhaps, not so reasonable possible explanations for Michael Medved’s “anybody but Romney” stance:
* Mitt Romney is smarter than Michael Medved and Michael knows it.
* Mitt Romney insulted Michael Medved at some point and Michael can’t bring himself to forgive Mitt.
* Michael Medved is a closet bigot. Not likely, but perhaps there’s a pocket there.
* We’re seeing the first signs of Medved boredom with the status quo.
* Medved is suffering in his listenership and wants to create controversy to stir up more listeners.
* Medved is flopping back toward liberalism and Huckabee is a great way to do it without admitting to it.
* McCain has pictures
* Medved just doesn’t agree with Romney on some issues and so demonizes him.
* Mitt Romney has better hair.
* Success envy.
* Huckabee has promised Medved that he will be his press secretary if elected.
Well, as you can see, this is one ardent and passionate Medved listener that has flip flopped. Not because Medved is against my candidate, but because he isn’t being consistent with his history.
Lowell Brown on 10 Jan 2008 at 10:16 am #
Dear SJ Reidhead aka Pink Flamingo:
Thanks for your comment. I tried to comment on your blog but found it impossible to create an account. Or do you just have me black-listed?
I am curious: Are you a Huckabee supporter? Or are you “uncommitted?” Seriously – just wondering.
I do not find the evidence your present that Romney hjas sanctioned dirty tricks very persuasive, by the way. I do find plenty of evidence that Huckabee shelters and attracts anti-Mormon bigots. Just visit his web site and read the comments about “throwing out this Mormon garbage.” At best, you’ve got some weak circumstantial evidence of Romney’s complicity in dirty campaigning, I guess. We have written evidence for all to see of Huck’s complicity in playing the bigot card.
You’re right, it is getting very nasty, but it is very difficult to lay the blame for that at Romney’s feet.
coltakashi on 10 Jan 2008 at 11:18 am #
In years of listening to Michael Medved and reading his reviews, I have found him to consistently defend Mormons when callers take pot shots and say positive things about Mormons in connection with all sorts of things when he would not be required to do so by the subject matter. He gave very positive reviews to some Mormon-produced movies. In general, he seems to me to be among the most intelligent conservative talk show hosts, marshalling facts and logic rapidly in response to left-leaning guests and callers.
I therefore do not give any credence to the notion that he might oppose Romney out of some kind of religious motive. I have not heard his rationale for supporting the other candidates.
Swertfeger on 10 Jan 2008 at 11:28 am #
I don’t think Medved is anti-mormon, but he is clearly anti-romney. In his column about the evangelical vote in Iowa (which I wish you guys would take a look at) he says
Those statistics are misleading. In using the ALL Iowa statistic, he is including evangelicals in that number, so it is no wonder the number that voted against him is so high. If Medved were honest, he would look at the number of non-evangelicals who voted for or against Mitt and compare that to the number of evangelicals who voted against mitt.
Also, on a recent Hugh Hewitt show, Medved also used the number of evangelicals who voted against Huckabee as proof that there was no anti-mormon influence. However, one can be anti-mormon and not vote for Huck. An Anti-mormon may decide, that Huck isn’t their candidate and vote for Fred or McCain. Anyway, that’s all I have to say about that. But I would like to hear you’re analysis of Medved’s article: http://michaelmedved.townhall.com/blog/g/75f7897d-1fb4-4a2f-9177-32b8ee72fe17
JLFuller on 10 Jan 2008 at 12:22 pm #
I went to the Flamingo site. The first piece there “HARDBALL, SC STYLE”, invokes the name of the hard core left wing PBS program NOW behind a FITSNews byline. This is what they say about themselves.
So Much for what the Pink Flamingo has to say.