Article VI Blog

« A Conversation with Gary Glenn of Michigan’s American Family Association | The Dance Of Religion and Politics . . . »

What IS Mike Huckabee’s Game?

Posted by: John Schroeder at 06:01 pm, February 25th 2008 &mdash 6 Comments »

Think about it: That is the question that has plagued this entire Republican campaign. Absent Mike Huckabee, or even if Mike Huckabee had played this thing by the normal rules, we would be in a very different place right now. Increasingly, those that supported him are making noises of embarrassment, or at least of confusion and disappointment.

In the past week we have seen stories about the Baptist minister’s wife in Las Vegas and Huck huddling with James Dobson, creating a great deal of cognitive dissonance even from this occasional Vegas-visiting church-goer. But with his “Saturday Night Live” appearance over the weekend, Huck moves into sheer ridiculousness.

Through the course of all of this my opinion of Mike Huckabee has varied from seeing him as a religiously-motivated, but severely misguided candidate; as a closet hard-line fundamentalist whose real motivation was to “stop the Mormon;” and as someone with whom I disagreed, but who was seeking to move the party in the way he felt appropriate. The reality probably includes of all of the above.

But one thing’s for sure: Given the tacit admission of the ridiculousness of his situation on SNL, Mike Huckabee does not care about much of anything other than Mike Huckabee. Hotline reports on his comments after the experience:

As tradition dictates, Huckabee returned at the end of the show, to be thanked by guest host Tina Fey. After the show ended, he told NBC/NJ that the experience was “a blast.”

“It was one of the coolest things I’ve ever got to do,” he said.

Obviously, Mike is having fun attracting attention to himself. There seems to be little else at play here. Huckabee has never clearly enunciated a strategy, a desire, or a motivation. In fact, those things seem to be constantly shifting in a direction dictated by what will attract the most attention to him. He is rapidly becoming the political equivalent of Brittany Spears - and as the political press is paying less and less attention (it ought to be even less than it is), the paparazzi seems more than willing to pick up the slack, and I am not at all sure Huckabee can tell the difference. Or perhaps he does not care about it.

The man has claimed divine intervention on his behalf, something he even did humorously in the SNL appearance, and he has mocked other religions. But when it suited the public mood in the locale he was working, he dropped all religious mention and played the class card, or used some other tactic - whatever got him attention.

Now, the world is full of people who want attention. Being one of them does not make Mike Huckabee unique or special. There have even been other presidential candidates with such selfish motivations, but never has a candidate pushed it this far, and on these bases. Not only has Mike Huckabee soiled the political environment, something that happens in every election cycle, but he has soiled the religious environment as well, and that is problematic.

The problems with the way in which Huckabee has used religion to benefit himself are legion, but I want to examine just a few.

Ghettoization of religion in the political sphere

Both John Mark Reynolds and yours truly have discussed this idea at some length. Identity politics, which are pretty much what Huck has played all along (although the identity has shifted from time to time) means the identity group must isolate itself into a ghetto of some sort, and only what is in the ghetto matters. Huck’s primary identity has been that of Evangelical; that is certainly the one he has played to most, and definitely the one the press has assigned him. His followers, as such, are currently residing in a political ghetto, their effectiveness minimized.

Playing Evangelicals for Dupes

In “ghettoizing” Evangelical voters, Huckabee has played us for dupes. He cannot hope to accomplish anything politically, but he continues to collect and represent Evangelical votes, apparently so he can have “a blast” on Saturday Night Live.

When the primary charge against the average evangelical voter is that they are “poor, uneducated and easily led,” what is going to come out Huck playing us this way? Doesn’t it reinforce precisely that characterization?

This guy no longer simply looks extraordinarily foolish, he now looks extraordinarily opportunistic, and what does that say about those that supported him? “Smart” is not the first answer that comes to my mind.

What is most troubling about all this is that in the best sense seeking office is called “public service” - that means one seeks our votes not to gain personal advantage, but to serve us. Huck seems to be operating in precisely the opposite mode. He appears to be seeking our votes to meet his need for media attention.

Which brings me to my final concern.

True religion is an end, not a means

Regardless of how you want to characterize Huckabee’s religious plays in the election , what is undeniably true is that he has used his faith and the faith of those that voted for him to achieve his personal ends. That strikes me as antithetical to the true aims of religion. As I understand it, we are to subject ourselves to our faith and allow that to make us into better people. As far as I can tell, that assertion is true for creedal or Mormon Christians. If we treat our faith as something we control and use, then we tacitly admit that religion is purely something that man has created to order society.

Now, the initial claim that started this blog, that Evangelicals would not vote for a Mormon, assumes the fact that Evangelicals hold their religious faith to be TRUTH, a higher truth, a truth apart from themselves, coming from the supernatural. So once again, we see that Huckabee has played those of us who take our faith seriously as dupes, since he apparently takes his faith in a very different fashion.

But more, he demonstrates that his ends are not necessarily the same as those of us that take our faith in a more traditional fashion. I do not know the theological basis Mike Huckabee has for his behavior throughout this campaign, but as a pastor, he presumably has one. What I can say is that based on his behavior, I would conclude that there is a theological canyon between me and Huckabee that is as large as the one between Mitt Romney and myself.

So how, precisely, have Evangelicals won in this deal? I don’t think we have - that’s the problem.

[Editor’s note: Technical editing was provided for this post by Article VI Blog Chief Counsel Lowell Brown, because some chemists, despite their considerable scientific and theological acumen and loveable natures, cannot spell or punctuate.]

Sphere: Related Content

Posted in Candidate Qualifications, Political Strategy, Understanding Religion | 6 Comments » | Print this post | Email This Post

Recently:

6 Responses to “What IS Mike Huckabee’s Game?”

wdporter on 25 Feb 2008 at 9:54 pm #

Yeah, good effort, but I’m just not buying it.

You have simultaneously acknowledged that Huckabee might indeed be actually trying to move the party in a direction he feels appropriate and have failed to cite any real evidence that he is not genuine other than that you apparently feel he’s comical or ridiculous.

It’s important not to ignore one small fact: he’s STILL getting quite a few votes. Obama beat Clinton in Virginia by a larger margin than McCain beat Huckabee. That doesn’t tell you anything? Either Evangelical Christians are just ignorant useless lemmings, or they believe that his staying in the race has value.

Did you know the latest ARG poll has him within 4 points of McCain in Texas? Maybe that’s a fluke, but even if it’s 12 points that’s still saying something, given that you, me, the media, God, Santa Claus, CNN and the President has been telling us how inevitable (and Conservative) McCain is.

Yes, he’s a little populist (OK very populist) and he’s a ham for the camera…but that’s typically how people make themselves known. My Mother as of two weeks ago still didn’t know who he was. Why? Because she’s not a political junkie like you and I.

Huckabee understands that he’s not going after political junkies, because, if he’s as smart as I think he is, he realizes that the political junkies have already made up their minds. You and I can gripe and complain at each other about whether or not he “deserves” to be in, or is playing “by the rules”…while his only goal is to make sure people that have never heard of him see his face and maybe take a glance at his website, and decide he’s more conservative than McCain.

What does he have to lose by staying in? And how do Evangelicals lose?

It would be a good idea for Evangelical Conservatives to stop pretending that they have real political clout in the Republican Party. Hopefully you don’t think that…We’re talking about a party that has NEVER had a real Evangelical Christian as a serious player for the Presidency (the only real Evangelical Christian President being a Democrat). We’re talking about a party that allowed three or four of the most early and delegate-heavy States to go “winner-take-all” where no Evangelical would have a chance.

Anyway, this is exhausting…love your blog.
paawa on 26 Feb 2008 at 12:19 am #

Cool picture of Frank Gorshwin as the “Riddler”!

John, I totally agree with your assessment of Huckabee. I actually hope he stays in longer, because there is more chance of him making more foolish comments or antics that will hopefully ruin his chances of ever running for president again. There’s no way, even if he had gotten the nomination through some “miracle” as he puts it, that he could ever beat Obama or even Hillary in the general election. He has practically zero appeal outside his narrow evangelical base, and has so much baggage that would make him look ridiculous running against any democrat at a national level. So many times he has done things which I thought would have ruined his candidacy (beginning with that press conference fiasco where he was supposed to announce his negative Romney ad). It does continue to baffle me that he manages to get as many votes as he does. I’m convinced though that it’s largely because of his continued use of religion as a way to mobilize evangelical voters, and that his voting base will continue to be reflected that way. He has also shown time and time again, that he has little or no “gravitas”, beginning around the time of his ad where he said that his answer to illegal immigration problems was putting Chuck Norris on the border, and most recently with his antics during the recent Saturday Night Live appearance. Having a sense of humor is one thing, but his past use of humor gives one a sense that he would not take serious issues seriously. He expects fellow evangelicals to vote for him just because he says he is “one of them”, and is offended when they don’t. He tries to claim that his candidacy has divine backing, which is extremely presumptuous, conceited, and just plain wrong. Even if he believes that, and if it were true, it’s not something one should brag about or even talk about publicly (sort of like bragging about being a humble person). It’s alot like wearing one’s religion on one’s sleeve, as a kind of badge of honor, and leaves the overarching impression that one is using their religion to get personal gain and glory of the world.
4thnephite on 26 Feb 2008 at 5:08 am #

Let’s understand most politicians require as much air time as possible for their ego, and I do mean alter-ego. Now I hear Hillary wishes to go on SNL to boost her soft and acting style. After awhile in front of the camera nothing else matters to them besides, “it”s show time”.

This year has become a very interesting time watching the news, hearing about how all of the polsters are getting “it” wrong. The picture of the Riddler is apropos for this year, but who and how many.

Now we have another Riddler, or would that be the Joker involved, Ralph Nader. What do they say, “to many cooks spoil the broth” too late.
“Holy Cow” Batman I can see a TV series coming on.

I love Les Brown, a motivation speaker, once mentioned the definition of EGO as
Edging God Out.

Bob Hope and Bing Crosby and all of their wonderful Road to………..
But who is qualified to play Crosby, Hope. I do think we have a Lamore.
JLFuller on 26 Feb 2008 at 9:12 am #

WDPorter asks “What does he have to lose by staying in? And how do Evangelicals lose?”. Well WD, it isn’t just Evangelicals who lose. It is everyone associated with him who loses. Supporters are painted with the same brush too. If a candidate has to resort to clownishness or stunts to get noticed he essentially has acknowledged that his message has failed. Those who cling to him look desperate and needy - kind of like the jilted lover who just won’t accept that that part of their life is over. That doesn’t build confidence. In fact it looks pathetic. It’s embarrassing quite frankly.
JLFuller on 26 Feb 2008 at 10:10 am #

The caricature the POST reporter painted a few years back about Evangelicals being “poor, uneducated and easily led,” comes from a very real part of the Christian experience. Although the reporter targeted Evangelicals, it seems to be wider than that. Well-read people know the profile does not fit all Evangelicals. As I read his intentions, he has a specific type of voter in mind. The people the reporter has in mind are the people who have been taught what to think not how to think. They can quote chapter and verse of what they have been taught but know little about other opinions or interpretations - and are discouraged from asking. It is a one way street for these folks. You can see it in those people who follow the slingers of “you are going to hell because…” epithets which, of course, always seem to followed by a plea for money.
CarlH on 26 Feb 2008 at 12:41 pm #

John Mark Reynolds post, contrasting Romney’s withdrawal with Huckabee’s lingering on, reminded me of the LA Times‘ “Top of the Ticket” blog item over the weekend, “A surprising aftermath to Mitt Romney’s campaign”

In some quarters, the surprise is that the LA Times would have noticed, let alone noted it!