We mentioned last week that Mitt Romney was getting an award for religious freedom. Well, the speech he made at the ceremony was another great one, well in line with, and flowing from, his famous Texas speech last December - the one Lowell and I were very proud to attend.

John Adams offers a further perspective. Our constitution and freedom would only endure if the passions and destructive tendencies of man’s nature were constrained by the bounds of religion: “Human passions unbridled by morality and religion” he said “…would break the strongest cords of our Constitution as a whale goes through a net. Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people.”

This great experiment in liberty will endure and flourish only so long as we maintain the humility, faith and character to govern ourselves.

There is much more really good stuff in this speech. Read the whole thing.

The reaction to this speech, is firstly at a far lower volume than when he was running, and it is also less critical. The Dallas Morning News calls it “more sophisticated.” K-Lo also reviewed the speech and summarized a recent interview she had with Romney. Needless to say, she loved it. I thought this was interesting:

In an interview with National Review Online, Romney called the December speech “the most memorable part of my campaign.” He said, “I had an opportunity that other people didn’t have, and I wanted to take advantage of that opportunity to talk about religious liberty.

Which makes me feel very honored to have been there. It was indeed a memorable experience. I am not sure the speech this week is more “sophisticated” and it is more explicit, which generally leads to greater clarity. I see no new thinking on the governor’s part, only being a little better at saying what he is thinking.

Speaking Of Which…

K-Lo asked Romney about Jeremiah Wright.

He expressed his frustration to me that “the Wright Factor” is often “referred to as a religious issue and I didn’t see it as a religious issue. I saw it as a matter relating to his sentiments about the country. His comments were not about religion, they were about America and to me they were very offensive.”

I continue to be concerned about this idea. Wright’s comments were about America, but they flow, at least in part, from his theology. I remain fearful that examining these statement is such detail opens our own thoughts, like Romney’s speech, to greater levels of scrutiny than we might like.

Lowell, chiming in: Forsooth! A rare, but typically mild, moment of disagreement between John and me. I agree with John Mark Reynolds: A candidate’s theology, and that of his backers, is out of bounds; but public policy statements, even if grounded in theology, are fair game. For example, if Jeremiah Wright’s counterpart in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints– say, the President of the Church– were to make incendiary and provocative statements about America, in meetings that Romney attended, it would be absolutely fair to ask Romney what he thinks of those statements.

And Evangelicals . . .

. . . are unhappy, are revolting, and not quite what the press made them out to be. If I may, this whole thing is getting just silly. I am beginning to think the press thinks of Evangelicals kind of like sideshow freaks. Which would certainly explain the Left’s reaction to Romney. Mormons would be viewed as steroid-enhanced freaks.

What a world, what a world . . .

An Addition from Lowell:

Robert Novak is at is again. Sometimes I think he just likes to stir the pot. (Devoted readers will recall that a piece by Robert Novak was the catalyst for this blog’s creation.) This time “the Prince of Darkness” paints a dark picture of Evangelicals:

An element of the Christian community is not reconciled to McCain’s candidacy but instead regards the prospective presidency of Barack Obama in the nature of a Biblical plague visited upon a sinful people. These militants look at former Baptist preacher Huckabee as ‘God’s candidate’ running for president in 2012. Whether they can be written off as merely a troublesome fringe group depends on Huckabee’s course. . . .

One experienced, credible activist in Christian politics who would not let his name be used told me Huckabee in personal conversation with him embraced the concept that an Obama presidency might be what the American people deserve. That fits what has largely been a fringe position among evangelicals that the pain of an Obama presidency is in keeping with the Bible’s prophecy.

That actually sounds like the kind of speaking out of both sides of his mouth at which Huckabee is so adept. And yet it’s also the same anonymous claptrap that Novak loves to spread. Politico’s Mike Allen, writing in the May 10 edition of his Playbook, doesn’t think too much of the story:

This is so delicious, we almost hate to spoil the fun. But a reluctant reality check: We talk to well-connected evangelicals all the time and not one of them has ever said anything like this, or thinks anything like this. And not one of them would ever vote for Huck.

Alas, although I share Allen’s skepticism, I think he dismisses the story a bit too easily. As Novak correctly notes:

Even taking Huckabee’s professions of support for McCain at face value, he is not leaving politics for the lecture circuit. He has formed the Huck PAC to back Republican candidates, his supporters have established a Website (Huck4America.com), and Huckabee backers are behind the Government Is Not God PAC to discourage McCain from naming Romney as his vice president.

Indeed. John and I chatted a bit about this yesterday, and concluded that Huck is neutralizing himself. What’s more, the people who are his most ardent supporters — the ones who now see Obama’s election as the judgment of an angry God– are apparently turning out to be a mixed blessing for Huck. He was basically the center around which the anti-Mormon forces, which are by definition from the fringes of the Evangelical movement, rallied.

John’s brief additional comments:  Huckabee’s once widely praised political skills are looking less sharp on a daily basis.   He is personable, likable, and a tremendous figure in front of a crowd, but he seems remarkably unable to expand his attraction beyond a certain segment and that is a segment that comes with as much bad as it does good.  One must remember that even Reagan kept Evangelicals at a friendly, but respectable distance.  There is a segment of Evangelicals that have, as they say, “gotten too big for their britches,” and Huckabee, by using Evangelicals as a base is stuck with their shenanigans.  He has failed to divorce himself from them and hence the self- neutralization.
Sphere: Related Content

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

Recently:

• Legality, Religiousity, Post-Prop 8 Ugliness and the Case Against Huckabee
• Prop 8 and religion: A moral or political issue, or both?
• RED MEAT! Hewitt, Huckabee and Anti-Mormonism
• Say What?!
• In The Wake Of Prop 8
• A Catholic Defense of Mormon Support (and other religions’ support) for Prop 8
• Being The Target
• Encouraging?
• Proposition 8: Multi-Faith Press Conference Speaks Out Against Attacks
• And Now…Terrorism!?