Article VI Blog

It has to be a sign that the punditry thinks Obama is ripe for the picking when you see all the press that is being spent discussing Republican hopefuls this early in the game.  Although I have to say that this AP dispatch may be the silliest, least informative thing on the topic I have ever read.

Of course it does not hurt that Palin’s book pre-released last week so all the pundits got to talk about it.  So Palin might as well be where we dip our toes in first.

David Frum did the numbers and decides that a Palin candidacy is a fantasy.  He calls her “one of the most unpopular figures in American life” which is not truly fair because in some circles she is one of the most beloved.  Therefore, I think the best term would be “polarizing.”  Polarizing is great media and lousy candidacy.  A candidate unites, not divides.  That is far more important than you might think.  Back to it in a minute.

However, Matthew Continetti notes here numbers with independents and thinks she can mount a “comeback.“  I find his choice of words fascinating – most of her ardent “supporters” do not think she needs to comeback from anywhere.  I keep feeling a radio talk show in my bones – you know the Huckabee route.  I’d actually applaud that, she garners media audience without splitting the party in a run.

Gilgoff wonders if her “beefs” with the McCain campaign reflected deeper culture war stuff.  I think there is little question that some of that was true on some level, and it is instructive.  Way too many conservative culture warriors are after home run victories, and that is at the root of the stuff that’s sort of ripping apart the party’s guts at the moment. (Now is the time to do it, but we are going to have to settle down soon.)  We have to think strategically and incrementally.  The fact that abortion became legal at the stroke of a pen is an aberration in how American politics is supposed to be done, and if we try to win back in the same manner, we are throwing the baby out with the bath water.

More on this in a minute because it is time to discuss . . .

Tim Pawlenty.  He’s off to New Hampshire, not much of a surprise there.  But opinion seems to be that he is misstepping badly at the moment.  Talking Points Memo notes that his home staters would not vote for him as POTUS.  We hear that story about most candidates, big deal, someone always wins.  Andrew Romano at Newsweek wonders who’s afraid of him.  Look, his media presence and polling are not there right now, but it is very early.  Fact of the matter is, only he and Romney are doing what real candidates do; Pawlenty has to be taken seriously.  It’s the media hounds like Palin and Huckabee that we can overlook for  the moment.

But there is a new meme out there that is a nasty one when it comes to TPaw.  Dan Balz used it first at his WaPo blog calling Pawlenty “Romneyesque.“  But Marc Ambinder came in the next day and headlined his post with the “accusation.“  Now there is the left-leaning press at its finest, managing to hammer the two leading GOP hopefuls at the same time, in the same sentence with the same charge.  Fact of the matter is the Pawlenty campaign is in the same place the Romney campaign was this time last cycle – and he is following roughly the same path.  But that’s not unusual; it’s a tried and true path and one that darn near got Romney the nomination, and has gotten the nomination for others before him.  This charge is pure political hackery disguised as punditry.  The MSM is going down in flames.

Now, you want to talk fringey possible candidates, you have to talk . . .

Ron Paul.  OK, well, not quite but his son is running for Senate in Kentucky and was interviewed by the WSJ’s Washington Wire last week.  There was this exchange:

Washington Wire: What about Tim Pawlenty or Mitt Romney?
Paul: I don’t know much about Tim Pawlenty. Romney, there’s a mixture of beliefs there.

Hmmm.  You have to wonder about that “beliefs” crack.  To what is he referring?  Politicians don’t have beliefs, they have positions.  Religious people have beliefs.  But then people confuse that all the time, which is a huge problem.

Which brings us, finally, to the very mainstream . . .

Mitt Romney.  CNN describes him as biding his time and building political capital.  It’s a great interview. Anthony Dalke at Race 4 2012 called it “pitch perfect.”   John J. Miller found him a big favorite in a group of some very smart young people. In fact, he is making a point of reaching out to the younger set. He is being so effective at it, and what he is saying when he does it, that the White House itself is striking out at him directly.  David Axelrod took a personal shot:

In an interview taped Saturday from Singapore with CNN’s John King for “State of the Union,” Axelrod said: “I know that Governor Romney has never had responsibility for any decision akin to this, so he just may not be familiar with all that it entails.

Axelrod apparently is completely unfamiliar with Romney’s resume, and otherwise ammo-less or he would have said something substantive.  If these people were not running the nation, that would be funny.

Why not find out for yourself what Romney is all about?  If you are one of our many Southern California readers, he is speaking in Newport Beach in a few weeks. I’m going to be there, feel free to come up and introduce yourself!

Republican Philosophy

The effort to “purge” moderates from the GOP seems to continue in the wake of NY23.  There were even some swipes taken at “Big Tenters” from a branding standpoint.  The fact of the matter is that to win nationally, we have to get a majority into the tent.  It’s as simple as that.  Yes, we need an energized base to accomplish that, but if they are energized to the point of “my way or the highway” that majority can never be achieved.   (Here are some other thoughts along those lines, lousy solution, but interesting analysis of the problem.)  Which takes us back to our closing comments on Palin above.

The country has indeed turned significantly left in my lifetime – but that is a key phrase – “my lifetime.”  It will take a lifetime to reverse that course.  All we accomplish by pushing out moderates is delaying the start of that lifelong reversal.  We need them to get ourselves in a position to start the journey.

Rod Dreher wrote a post this past week on Evangelical prejudice towards Catholics.  He closes with this:

It’s easy to write off megachurch Evangelicals as “stupid” because then we in the liturgical churches who have lost members to them don’t have to confront the possibility that maybe they had good reason to leave us. I’m not saying a lot of what goes on in megachurch culture isn’t stupid (I have had several Evangelical friends say as much to me). I’m saying that if we decide from the outset that the only reason anybody would go to those churches is because of some spiritual or intellectual deficiency, we’re closing our eyes to things we might well need to change in how we do things.

It should go without saying that Evangelicals who falsely believe that the old liturgical churches are full of spiritually dead Christians who have nothing to teach us about faith are in the same boat.

One of the places where I am sorely tempted to write off Evangelicals as “stupid” is the instant gratification aspect of their religious message.  Our becoming a Christian is the beginning of a journey, not the obtaining of a goal.  I believe this is something Mormons and the more orthodox share in their beliefs.  Yet, as the Evangelical version of “Saved, I’m done” gains in popularity, we see such thinking transfer to other areas.

Of course, part of the problems with Evangelicals in politics reflects problems within Evangelicalism itself.  I found this editorial in Patrol magazine, a magazine specifically for “post-evangelicals,” absolutely fascinating. (HT: iMonk)

The fight to define evangelicalism in its latter days also operates on the mistaken premise that an imagined theological purity or conformance to a “lost” orthodoxy, rather than an emphasis on ethics, spiritual discipline and mystery, will revive the power of the Christian church. It is astonishing that so many intelligent Christians seem to believe there is a deficit in emphasis on evangelism and scriptural literalism, and that, if the hatches are just battened down on a more solid “worldview,” evangelicalism can resume explaining the universe to new generations of believers. In this respect, evangelicalism’s true believers resemble the faction of the Republican Party that asserts with a straight face that returning to “core principles,” and not a radical restructuring of priorities, will bring waves of Americans back to the right wing.

We need to exercise patience as we try to turn the nation around, patience with the goal, and patience with our fellow travelers who may not want to go the same distance we do – let’s at least be amicable traveling companions while we are on the same road.

Finally . . .

In the wake of the Ft. Hood massacre, there has been some interesting discussion of religion and society.  It is an important question.  We cannot tolerate religion to violence, but we must be as tolerant as possible.  A fine, fine line.  Here’s some of the more interesting stuff we read on the topic:

• Jim Geraghty with an interesting juxtaposition.
• Rod Dreher on “diversity.“
• Tunku Varadarajan in Forbes.
• David Brooks in the NYTimes.

And remember, if you are not following us on Twitter and Facebook, you are not getting the whole story.

Posted in Reading List | 2 Comments » |  Print this post |  Email This Post

Recently Posted:

• Matters of Taste And Thought
• Betting On Weird
• What To And What Not To Worry About
• Examing The Question From Yet Another Angle – Analyzing Florida
• Mitt Romney on Religious Liberty