Article VI Blog

On Monday we said:

Rumors emerged in whispers last week that Santorum and or Thune may be contemplating an actual attempt and not just floating trial balloons.

So what should appear in print this week?  Well, later Monday:

Former Pennsylvania senator Rick Santorum told ABC News that he is examining a run for president in 2012. He says he is “absolutely taking a look.”

And Wednesday:

While most of the 2012 GOP presidential buzz is focused on a group of former and soon-to-be former governors, Sen. John Thune is increasingly being viewed as the Capitol’s most likely White House contender.

Yes, our ear is that close to the ground which is why you should be reading Article VI Blog at every opportunity.

Why, you might wonder, would these gentlemen be looking at this now when the field is already pretty full of presumptives?  Because, frankly…

Republicans, Especially Christian Ones, Are Tearing Themselves Apart

UtahPolicy.com looks at a new poll that indicates “a major divide within the Republican party.”  The poll points out that a “Tea Party” candidate would beat a Republican one.  That could explain some moves we have seen amongst some of the presumptives this week.  We have contended almost from Day One that Palin is not running.  Some still insist.  But be that as it may, a hat tip to EFM for this from Chris Cillizza:

An astute Fixista flagged a fascinating interview that former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin gave to conservative talk radio host Lars Larson last Friday in which she appears to leave the door open to a third party bid for president in 2012. Asked by Larson whether she would consider running as a third party candidate, Palin said: “That depends on how things go in the next couple of years.” Larson told the 2008 vice presidential nominee that answer “sounds like a yes” to which she responded: “If the Republican party gets back to that [conservative] base, I think our party is going to be stronger and there’s not going to be a need for a third party, but I’ll play that by ear in these coming months, coming years.” Which, to the Fix’s delicate ears, sounds like Palin leaving the door wide open. As we have written before, Palin is not — and never will be — a candidate of the Republican establishment. Given that, and the unpredictability she demonstrated in her stunning decision to resign as governor over the summer, no potential avenue to the presidency should be ruled out.

Third Party Sarah makes a weird sense to me.  She’ll never win because third party candidates never do.  If Teddy Roosevelt could not pull it off, Sarah Palin sure cannot.  But her behavior is far more in line with Ross Perot than it is with somebody seriously considering a party run.  But remember what Perot accomplished – Bill Clinton.  Come to think of it, third parties are losers not just for the candidate.

Which bring us to Mike Huckabee who is reported by Politico:

Former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee believes that trying to build a big tent Republican Party will “kill” the conservative movement.

Uh, Mike – you’re entitled to your opinion and all, but there are not enough conservatives, well at least your type of conservative, out there to win a national election.  It’s simple math.  He is quoted:

“Conservatives are conservatives because they have convictions, and convictions aren’t preferences,” Huckabee said. “You’ll change your preferences. Your convictions are what you’ll die for.”

Well, that is certainly prophetic since death is precisely what will occur – in the form of never holding office.  And see, here’s the thing, if your dead, who’s there to try and move the ball forward?  Two steps forward, one step back is still one step forward.  Two steps forward and die trying to hold them means your opponent is no longer opposed.  It’s called strategy.

But Mike is far from alone in this sort of thinking.  The Manhattan Declaration has proven divisive, which is just incredibly sad.   Here are three blog posts on the matter that are great starting places:

• Ed Stetzer
• James Grant at ‘Evangel’
• Justin Taylor

What’s the debate about?  Well, in a word “theology.”  The primary concern for many is making common cause with Roman and Orthodox Catholics who, in the view of the usual suspects, are as heretical as the dreaded Mormons.  It is interesting, if not funny, because the theological divide between Catholics and Evangelicals is a gnat’s hair compared to the distance-between-galaxies divisions between Mormons and Creedals and illustrates the futility of injecting theology into essentially political situations.  They are arguing about definitions of “gospel” when the point is doing what we can to minimize abortion and prevent same-sex marriage from becoming the law of the land.

In the end, it is a statement about the state of Evangelical Christianity for those that have these concerns.  For them, religion IS theology, which is a narrow definition of religion indeed.  What’s sad is that their theological insistence in the end makes the world worse since it prevents them from participating in an alliance, thus weakening it, designed precisely to make the world better.  One is almost forced to ask, “What good is a form of Christianity that makes the world worse?”  (I can think of a number of good things about Evangelicalism, I’m not trying to say it’s bad here – just suggest some careful self-examination.)

It makes one wonder if Rick Warren is not smarter than we might otherwise think.

Meanwhile, Christianity Remains In The Crosshairs

The Supreme Court is giving us a hearing on an important one.  I am getting really tired of hearing that Christianity is ‘discriminatory.’  Besides, discrimination is a great way to enforce that which is wrong but should not be criminal.

Speaking of which, the secular left wants to blame the economic downturn on us.  I guess if the Supreme Court will not grant them a victory, they’ll shun us.  Which frankly is the way it ought to be.  Being a Christian is no more  a crime than being gay.  Yes, we get to shun back – that’s how the game is played.

But if you ask me what is most dangerous to religion, I will tell you this.  The story reduces the religious to a political interest group.  Just as religion is more than theology, so it is more than political stances.  We keep reducing ourselves to insignificance when religion should be most significant and powerful – just a different power than we find in government.

Posted in Reading List | 3 Comments » |  Print this post |  Email This Post

It was an amazingly quiet weekend on the religion front, if not in the “invisible primary.”  I was able to attend this event on Saturday, saw some old friends (one of whom we will get to in a minute) and Governor Romney was amazing.  His stump speech is getting highly polished.   He is a fairly formal and organized kind of guy, but he has become increasingly relaxed in the role of spokesman he has assumed and that shown through in his ad libs, quips, and personal reference as there were several friends in the crowd.

He did not do a meet and greet, but in a very special move he dispatched someone to call over four high school sophomores that were in attendance for a personal greeting during lunch.  It was a classy move.  I was lucky enough to be sitting at the table with the young people and they were, as you can imagine floored.

But enough about that…

On To The Invisible Primary . . .

Here’s a hint – when you start seeing Palin and/or Huckabee making serious campaign moves like this, then you’ll know they are serious.  Right now, Romney and Pawlenty are the only serious players in the game and Romney has a huge jump on TPaw.  Rumors emerged in whispers last week that Santorum and or Thune may be contemplating an actual attempt and not just floating trial balloons.  If so, one has to think they will be efforts to build for a run at a later date – both are just too far behind-the-curve at this point.

But that said, Palin and Huckabee are both going to be prominent in the press’ mind for some time to come and they both have delicious religious angles, so you can look for us to continue to discuss them.

Nah, just nah.

Speaking of which, the Huckabee commutations continue to reverberate.  Romney was on Larry King Friday and King asked about the commutations.  Depending on the pundit, some say Romney slammed the Huckster and some say he went soft on him.  We’ve put the video in the widget at left here, you look at it, you decide.

Although I suspect there is a bit of sarcasm in Geraghty’s comment on “the love” Romney showed Huck as he brings up Huckabee’s now infamous “brothers” comment from Iowa.

. . . And The Religion Angle

Which brings us to former Huckabee Iowa staffer Joe Carter.  You’ll remember last Wednesday, we took Joe, now the “on-line” guy at First Things, to task for publishing what remains one of the more baffling statements we have ever read concerning religion in public life.  We will not here recount that discussion.  Our old friend, John Mark Reynolds (the old friend I saw at the event Saturday), whom Carter has recruited as a contributor to the “Evangel” blog at First Things did respond to Joe’s post, arguing about how good it would be to have Romney in the White House at the moment, and recounting his classic “three tests” for considering religion and candidates.

Carter responded in the comments to Reynolds post.  He claims that both Reynolds and we missed the point of his post:

One point that I did raise, though, was how that its [sic] strange that we can bring up issues about evangelicals (e.g., Sarah Palin’s eschatology) but if someone even asks questions about Mormonism (e.g., Are Satan and Jesus brothers?) then they’re a bigot. It’s a strange double standard.

We agree there should not be a double standard.  We have never questioned Palin’s eschatology here.  We have pointed out that such attacks are, to our mind, unwarranted.  We have not worked especially hard to defend Palin specifically, but then this is a blog dedicated to Romney and the Mormon question.  It is our contention that Mormons are the “tip of the spear,” as it were, when it comes to attacking religion in civil discourse and therefore should be the point of most vigorous defense.  It is also our contention, precisely because we do not hold to a double standard, that attacks on Mormons, when allowed to stand, legitimize attacks on Evangelicals and others.

That, in fact, may be the bottom line for this blog, at least for its Evangelical half.  The left wants religion out of politics all together – all of us.  When we on the right attack religion, any religion on pretty much any basis other than actual behavior, we provide the left with a weak front on which to attack us generally.  The very discussion of the difference between Mormons and more orthodox forms of Christianity provided the left with a weak point in our defense, and as the results of the last election show, they used it quite effectively.  Not because Romney was not the nominee, but because with us divided over the issue, we were weakened.

Cater goes on to comment in response to Reynolds:

As for Mitt Romney, I don’t dislike him because he’s Mormon. I dislike him because he doesn’t seem to have any core political convictions that he won’t flip-flop on if he thinks it will help him get elected.

There are many people for whom the flip-flop charge is just that – a political charge of flip-flop.  But coming from someone that “seconded” Joel Belz’ religiously based contention that Mormons purposefully mislead, it’s a little hard to separate the religious bias from the political charge.  The charge that Belz leveled:

Do these officials hold to the fantastical 1827 golden tablets of Mormon founder Joseph Smith—or not? Well, they seem to say: We believe it when we want to, and we don’t when it’s less convenient.

is frankly no different than when the left charges us with being hypocritical as philanderers like Haggard, Swaggert, and Bakker, not to mention numerous priests with that problem, continue “in ministry.”  “I mean how is this ‘grace stuff’ compatible with the behavioral standards of Christian faith?  Either sex outside of marriage is forbidden or it is not.”

We have to learn to be very, very careful in how we parse our arguments.  The die was cast the minute anybody said anything about Romney’s religion other than, “It doesn’t matter – we have a right to bring our faith to the public discourse and so do Mormons.”  Anything short of that is religious bigotry, whether it the the left aimed at Evangelicals or Evangelicals aimed at Mormons.  This includes, by the way, softer forms of bigotry, like plain old identity politics wherein we vote for the guy most like us instead of the guy we believe can best do the job.

OK – off my soap box for now – this guy does a pretty good job of it for me.

Lowell chiming in . . .

All I can add to John’s analysis is this: In dealings with this blog Joe Carter has been a gentleman and very generous with his time. (We once interviewed him at some length during the 2008 presidential cycle.) Even so, I just don’t find Joe’s thinking very compelling. Joe told us it was just fine, in his opinion, if people voted against Romney solely on religious grounds. Joe would have much more credibility in complaining about a supposed “double standard” for Romney if he hadn’t said so. And I guess I’ll just leave my comments at that.

Posted in Reading List | 5 Comments » |  Print this post |  Email This Post

WaPo says the Republican party is divided . . . and oxymoronically united.   Meanwhile, CNN says Palin best represents Republicans.  Wednesday, we pointed out that the conservative coalition, which is how Republicans get elected, did fracture in ’08.  We defined the fault line as between the ideologues and the pragmatists.  So, I was quite please to read this from a young Evangelical interested in politics.

If you have an opinion, there’s probably a brand of conservatism just for you.  If you care most about faith and values, for example, you might consider yourself a social conservative.  Those who worry about preserving the culture are paleo-conservatives, and neo-conservatives consider national security the most pressing issue of our time.

But what if you’re just a conservative?  Unfortunately, thanks to the widening gap between the thinkers and the doers of the movement, this isn’t always easy to define.  The intellectually robust “shared texts” that used to unite conservatives are no longer commonly read. Instead, they have been replaced by books that reinforce natural divisions by carefully marketing to splintered conservative demographics.

I think there is some wisdom there.  Marketing is moving more and more towards a niche model.  This leaves political consultants, whose job it is to create broad appeal, with no place to turn to figure out how to do that.  Their traditional allies in marketing are actually fighting against them.  The religious lines we have seen are part of the same phenomena.

Wgile we are on the subject, here is a late addition.  Our old friend John Mark Reynolds penned this about a comment Palin made in an interview Thursday:

…for a Christian two wrongs not only don’t make a right, but actually are just more wrong. There is the whole issue of, well, the Golden Rule as well.

Third, asking whether Obama is born in the United States is not a “fair question,” because there is no credible evidence he was not born in the United States. You cannot ask a fair question when your questions is based only on a desire to do damage equal to that done to you by another.

The conservative movement must reject a populism that amounts to mob rule. Our founding fathers believed in reason and hated demagoguery. The notion that it there is any fair way to questions the President’s place of birth is beyond the pale.

And now, back to the original post.

This is gonna get interesting.

Turning To The Candidates – Huckabee

OK, we all knew the commutation thing was going to hurt him, but there is some strong language out there.

Mike Huckabee will waste a lot of money and other people’s votes if he thinks he is somehow still viable in presidential politics. He is done. He is a nice man, and kind of cute playing his guitar on his television show. But he should not ever hold a public office where he might make executive-branch decisions because he has shown he is weirdly or naïvely soft on criminals. Good people have been hurt by Huckabee’s actions. He has shown us this week that just giving the impression of being sorry is difficult. He was doing full-out damage control for himself when he should have just shut up until the funerals were over. I perceive a creepy, intimidating undercurrent that refusing Mike Huckabee “forgiveness” is somehow not “Christian.”

That last sentence is a standard play when pastors go bad.  I’ve heard it more times than I want to in church scandal situation.  All I can say is, I hope Huckabee does not go that far.

And yet Dick Morris still thinks Huck’s the presumptive leader.  But then Morris was a consultant to Huckabee.  Morris also had some unkind remarks for Romney is the same interview which brings us to . . .

Turning To The Candidates – Romney

The very left leaning Salon got pretty funny about Morris’ slam on Romney.

Fortunately for Romney, the good news is very good: Given Morris’ recent history of prognostication, it’s probably best to now consider Romney the front-runner for the nomination, if not a lock to win in the general.

Most people have probably forgotten by now — or, at least, that’s probably what Morris is hoping — but the former strategist for Bill Clinton turned professional Clinton-hater was the author of a book, published in 2005, titled “Condi vs. Hillary: The Next Great Presidential Race.”

Come on, you have to laugh at that a little.

But what was really interesting was CBN’s (Pat Robertson’s news organization) political reporter David Brody  has suddenly lavished a bit of well deserved praise on Governor Romney.

Mitt Romney could end up being President Obama’s worst nightmare.

IF Romney wins the 2012 Republican nomination for President and IF unemployment is hovering at 10 percent or higher in 2011/2012 Romney is going to have a major advantage in a possible General election battle vs. President Obama. After all, it is Mitt Romney who has a PROVEN track record on creating jobs and his reputation for taking corporate ventures from worst to first is well documented. Obama would have his hands full.

I wonder if it is a coincidence, Brody doing this so soon after Huckabee finds himself in this much trouble?  Oh, I know Romney published that USAToday op-ed and all, but Brody has left a lot of what Romney does uncommented upon.

Speaking of the Huck/Romney juxtaposition, there was an interesting interchange between Marc Ambinder and Ramesh Ponnuru on what the Huckster’s fortunes say about Romney and Iowa.  I’m with Ramesh on this one.

Turning To The Candidates . . .

…some guy in Detroit thinks Thune’s the man.  Maybe in a couple of cycles, but not this one.

Religion and Issues

What ho?  Orthodox Jewish Rabbis are joining the fight against same-sex marriage in New Jersey?  Even though they did not sign the Manhattan Declaration?  Gee, maybe that document is not the telltale some people think it is.

Neither of us is Catholic, so we have steered clear of the story because we have nothing intelligent to say about it, but there is a bit of a throw down between one of the next-generation Kennedys and a catholic Bishop.  This is as good a place to start as any, if you want to follow the story.

Have a good weekend.

Posted in Uncategorized | 1 Comment » |  Print this post |  Email This Post

Time doesn’t permit a long post today, but we can offer a few quick hits:

Mike Huckabee, Convicts, and Religion

Anyone not living in a cave for the last 48 hours knows that Maurice Clemmons, the murderer of four police officers in Seattle, was once in state prison in Arkansas – until Mike Huckabee commuted his sentence.  Huck has been running away from that decision and attempting to spread the blame to others involved in processing Clemmons through the legal system.  It’s been suggested that Huckabee’s faith played a huge role in his clemency decisions as governor.  The man himself has not yet addressed that question, probably because he doesn’t want to touch it.

That’s understandable.

Consider:  While Governor of Arkansas, Mike Huckabee issued 1,033 pardons, twice as many as the prior three Arkansas governors combined.  Just as a point of comparision, Mitt Romney did not issue a single pardon while Governor of Massachusetts.  I have a hunch that Huckabee, as a potential 2012 presidential candidate, is now . . . toast.

David Frum Thinks The Whole GOP Religion Situation Is Terrible

At least that’s what he seems to be saying here.  Frum, who’s unhappy with religious conservatives generally, sees the Manhattan Declaration’s failure to include Mormons as yet another example of Evangelical bias against that faith.  Well, the Declaration was authored not just by Evangelicals but also Catholics and Orthodox Christians, something Frum doesn’t seem to grasp.  Also, as I noted here, the Declaration is a doctrinal trinitarian document.  Mormons and other heterodox Christian faiths could not have signed it (to say nothing of Orthodox Jews), so the document’s drafters didn’t even invite them to sign.  There are political reasons to quibble with the Declaration’s narrowness, but to this Latter-day Saint it doesn’t look like a slap at Romney or Mormonism.

Meanwhile, this writer at the Frum Forum plows ground that have already been plowed ad nauseam.  An atheist, he thinks Romney’s religion is fair game:

Devotion to Mormonism, which is completely outside of the American mainstream, requires a certain level of commitment. To what extent will Romney’s faith influence his decision-making? I ask that question of devoted evangelicals and judge them accordingly, and I will do the same of a Mormon. And I am not going to apologize for that.

What a stunning insight.  Move along, folks, nothing here to see . . . .  (And thanks to our reader Mary Lynn, who told us about this piece.)

And Finally: The Question, Studied Once Again

This recently-published study reaches some intuitively unsurprising conclusions:

Our results do, however, indicate that there is something Romney’s supporters can do to assuage concerns about his Mormonism. People who objectively know a lot about Mormons — that is, those who scored 100% on a short quiz on facts about Mormonism — were much less likely to be bothered by the claim that Mormons are not Christians. In contrast, respondents who claimed they knew a lot about Mormons, but who actually did not, were bothered most of all by claims about Mormonism. . . .

In other words, our study suggests that Romney’s supporters would do well to encourage those who are troubled by his faith to become better informed about Mormonism.

Such a discussion would likely help Romney: Information helps and ignorance hurts his chances. More important, it would help broaden religious tolerance in America.

Well, we certainly agree with that.

John Adds His Two Cents

There is much I am tempted to say about Mr. Huckabee and the role religion played in his commutations.  It is an expression of much that is wrong on a religious level with the shallowness that has become Evangelicalism.   But this is not a religious blog so I shall let that be.

Huckabee has been striking out at his critics over this, even when he admitted he was unlikely to run just 24 hours before the story broke.  Therein may lie the problems for future politics.  Huckabee has been the standard bearer for many Evangelicals and as he plays this so are they likely to go.  Slipping into defensive “You don’t get it’s and “I told you so’s will not be productive for that group.

Which brings me to the Manhattan Declaration.  Religiously motivated political activism was, in the 2008 election cycle highly fractured.  It fractured along left-right lines, which is not new, but visible for the first time, and it fractured between the ideologues and the pragmatists.  The ideologues retreated to Hucks and Palins of the world- fueled no doubt by anti-Mormon sentiment amongst some as the study cited above demonstrates – and as a result hurt conservative effectiveness.  Unity needs to be restored amongst the traditional coalition or all is lost.

The trinitarian references in the Manhattan Declaration, as one of our commenters has pointed out, are pro forma and not necessary to the primary stances taken therein.  They are a reference that would come for many involved as straightforwardly as breathing.  Their inclusion is likely because to debate them would have increased the fracture lines that were attempting to be healed.  Little can be judged about the relationship with Romney and Mormons on a political level until the healing is complete.

Frum’s commentary is designed to foment fracture along any fault line he can find.  It’s quite obvious that is what is at play here.  And yet, the commenter at Frum’s site shows why we must heal all such fractures.  To the non-religious, who are primarily left-leaning, there is no real distinction between the orthodox and the heterodox – such distinctions appear to them to be infighting and to be politically exploited.  Huckabee’s defensiveness, and that of his supporters, is another such fracture line.

When things like this happen, we would be wise to look for ways to heal the fractures not widen them.

EVEN LATER ADDITION BY JOHN:

Our old friend Joe Carter has posted an important response to the Frum commenter (Alex Knepper) that we discuss above:

Knepper has a valid point about certain religious beliefs and traditions being fair game for scrutiny while others are off-limits. There is a peculiar double-standard in place, though the criteria for which ones are included is difficult to discern. I also agree that religious beliefs—indeed I would include all beliefs of any type—should be considered fair game when evaluating a candidate. The question Knepper leaves unanswered, though, is how such beliefs are to be evaluated in the public square. Where is the line between reasonable criticism and irrational bigotry?

Personally, I’m open to being exceedingly tolerant of raw religious bigotry as long as its accompanied by a healthy portion of religious liberty. When we enter the public square I’m willing to allow anyone to make whatever nasty remarks they like about evangelicalism as long as I can presents arguments that are rooted in my faith and that are given a fair hearing.

Interesting approach, but I am not sure it works.  The entire point of prejudice and bigotry is to discount arguments by the object of the prejudice and bigotry.  Hence prejudicial references are not admitted in courts because they mean the jury’s judgment is compromised with regards to the pertinent facts of the case.  In other words there is no religious liberty when there is raw religious bigotry – bigotry precludes liberty of any sort – total bigotry against blacks resulted in total slavery, the ultimate denial of liberty.

Bigotry and prejudice are the enemy of law and ours is a nation of laws, not men.

Lowell’s Postscript:

I’ll be more blunt than John:  Joe Carter’s argument is just plain nuts.  To say “raw religious bigotry” is just fine “as long as its [sic] accompanied by a healthy portion of religious liberty” is an argument so internally inconsistent as to be laughable. But there’s nothing funny about what Carter says. There can not be any acceptable level of religious liberty in the presence of raw religious bigotry. I fear that Carter is simply trying, however feebly, to make an argument that leaves room for his own approach to Romney’s faith in the public square. He needs to re-think his position, and soon.

Posted in Electability, Religious Bigotry, Understanding Religion | 3 Comments » |  Print this post |  Email This Post

If you do not know who G.K. Chesterton is, you should. He is the greatest British popularizer of Christian faith, save perhaps for C.S. Lewis.  Chesterton’s writings are a source of great wisdom and quotations.  Speaking of which, I recently ran across this one from his book What’s Wrong With The World (p 22-23):

It’s not merely true that a creed unites men. Nay a difference of creed unites men—so long as it is a clear difference. . . .  So a Tory can walk up to the very edge of Socialism if he knows what Socialism is. But if he is told that Socialism is a spirit, a sublime atmosphere, a noble indefinable tendency, why then he keeps out of its way; and quite right too. One can meet an assertion with an argument; but a healthy bigotry is the only way in which one can meet a tendency.

As I reprinted that, it dawns on my that my Mormon readers may take exception to the appearance of the word “creed” and presume I am about to take a swipe at the Mormon lack thereof.  Not at all the case.  My intention in presenting this quotation is to point out that the source of much of the distrust between some Creedals and Mormons is because those Creedals have so little firm understanding of what they believe.  Because their faith has been reduced to a label or brand of some sort, they must defend territory instead of argue reasonably.   That, frankly is why I started with this blog – I knew that prejudice against Mitt Romney was a sign of the decline of my faith and I hope that by fighting it, my faith can be preserved.

Unfortunately, those same people are pretty much the same way about the G.O.P.  Jon Meacham offered a pretty radical solution to that problem over the long weekend – nominate Dick Cheney for president.  Cheney is a great guy and a good man and would frankly make an outstanding president, but the idea is radical because he is more polarizing than Sarah Palin and therefore unelectable; and because as best as I understand it, he would be running serious personal risk given his various health maladies – something I would not ask any candidate to do no matter how good they are.

But alas, I think we are in for more stuff like this . . .

The Manhattan Declaration

Last week saw the release of “The Manhattan Declaration.“  This is a statement of political principles and priorities, signed by almost all of the biggest names in Catholic, Orthodox, and Evangelical circles, as a joint statement of where we will draw the line on the key social issues of our time.  It’s a marvelous document and you may join the signers online — we urge you to.  As William Murchinson pointed out, it is sad and surprising that such a document is necessary in the United States of America.  But it certainly is something everyone seems to hang their agenda upon.

Interestingly, as was pointed out by the biggest anti-Mormon loudmouth on the left in California (think Prop 8.) it has no Mormon signatories.  You would think that the fact that such a leftie loudmouth was pointing that out would be a clue that someone wanted to drive a wedge between Mormons and the rest of the Christian religious right – to the detriment of the concerns expressed in the declaration.  But some people just cannot help themselves, I guess.

Based largely on the fact that the PR for the declaration is being handled by our friend Mark DeMoss’ (a prominent evangelical Romney backer last time around) firm, a number of what can only be described as the right’s very own nutroots have decided, despite the lack of Mormon participation, that the whole thing is a “front” for a Romney candidacy.  Consider this guy – this guy – this guy and this thread at Free Republic.  This in spite of the fact that David Frum thinks the thing is exclusionary for Romney.  (Frum’s comment must have been written under the influence of too much Thanksgiving cheer and with little thought – see my comments below Lowell’s)

The claim that it is a front for Romney is so nonsensical that I am not entirely sure where to put a stake in to start arguing about it.  The holiday weekend has put a damper on things a bit, but we have put out a number of phone calls to contacts, many of whom were instrumental in the drafting of the document, or are major signatories.  I doubt seriously that a Romney candidacy even entered into the discussion, but we’ll confirm it.  As to DeMoss’ participation, that’s just silly.  If you want PR in the circles this thing is aimed at, you call Mark DeMoss – he’s the man in that area, it is no more complex than that.

Oh, one more thing before we move on for now.  Many of the prominent signatories are people that we named as “bad actors” on the right in our summary of campaign ’08 series, most notably Joel Belz who wrote the only truly bigoted piece from the right through the entire campaign.

Once we have heard from our contacts, we’ll likely put this thing to bed as the nut cases getting lose, but until then we’ll keep an eye peeled.

Meanwhile, There Is An “Invisible Primary” Going On…

Sarah Palin’s “anointing” is complete.  Yeah, she met Billy Graham.  Now here is what I am thinking about this.  Graham does not do candidates, has not since Nixon made him look the fool.  Even in his doddering years, Graham has not lost control of his faculties.  He did not “endorse” Palin in any way, but he is not seeing many people in his latter years either, so a lot of people are going to read this as his “endorsement.”  I think the opposite – I think for him to do this, he had assurances she was not going to run.  Just one man’s educated guess.

But I think her book tour success explains this:

MIKE HUCKABEE, on “Fox News Sunday,” told Chris Wallace that a 2012 presidential bid is “less than likely,” and depends on whether Roger Ailes, chairman and CEO of Fox News, keeps liking his eponymous weekend talk show. “The reason I wouldn’t is that this Fox gig I’ve got is really wonderful, ” Huckabee said.

Pawlenty is having a hard time finding political oxygen.  Heck in some circles with Palin’s book tour going on, even Obama is having a hard time finding political air.  But this idea, that Pawlenty wins by being “least offensive,” completely misreads the base at the moment.  That was last election and the base is just too angry for it to happen again.

Finally, Romney is not polling that well at the moment.  I chalk it up to his actually, you know, working hard to elect other Republicans instead of posturing like Huckabee and media-grabbing like Palin.  Way, way too long until this gets serious to worry about it anyway.

Is The Catholic Church . . .

…calling the shots in Washington? — Or Not?  Of course not – what they are doing is what they think is best on an issue-by-issue basis.  That’s the traditional stance for religious organizations in general, but I am beginning to wonder if they ought not get deeper.  In the end its the candidates that matter.  Should the church, any church, endorse?  Worthy of discussion as we move forward here.

Lowell chiming in . . .

I was wondering why the Manhattan Declaration included only Catholic, Evangelical and Orthodox signatories, but we have an answer to that question.  In response to a direct question from Hugh Hewitt during Hugh’s show Monday, Nov. 23,  Chuck Colson said that the Declaration’s drafters did not invite Mormons or Jews to join in their efforts because of the doctrinal differences between those faiths and Creedal Christianity.  (No transcript available yet; the pod cast is here; subscription is required.)  The drafters, Colson said, knew that the Mormons and Jews could not sign the Declaration because of those differences, and did not want to “embarrass” them by inviting them to sign.  Having read the declaration, I see Colson’s point: at the beginning the document makes clear that the signers are trinitarian.  Neither Mormons nor Jews could ever sign, as much as they might agree with 95% of what the Manhattan Declaration says.  In short, its drafters decided that the Declaration needed to be a highly doctrinal statement.

We are still learning about the Declaration, so I will reserve judgment on the question of whether it should have been broader-based.  Politically, having made it broader would have made all the sense in the world; but if a doctrinal statement was intended, then I see nothing exclusionary or conspiratorial about leaving non-Creedals out.

John responds briefly: There is a group, particularly inside Evangelicalism, that thinks everything is doctrine.  They are a large part of the “take their ball and go home” contingent amongst the religiously motivated on the political right.

Last cycle we saw a number of people get stuck on making sure we all knew the doctrinal distinctions with Mormons, Jews, and for some even Catholics, seemingly in preparation of saying “Mormons are cool politically; however,”  Although, that discussion never got off square one when Huckabee entered the picture.  My guess is trying to build a political coalition while delineating the doctrinal differences is what is at root here – making this only step one.  Regardless of a Romney candidacy or not, in the end, conservative Mormons and Jews have to a be part of the coalition for us to succeed, as Prop 8 so clearly demonstrated.

It’ll be interesting to see how this all, in the end, plays out.  It may be that the “doctrine is everything” crowd will ally with Mormons only in a way analogous to how we allied with Stalin in  WWII.   We can do better because when it comes to politics, I do not think we need to be that distrusting of Mormons, but maybe it’s a “baby steps” thing.

Posted in Uncategorized | 4 Comments » |  Print this post |  Email This Post

There is an amazing amount of news given that it is not even the end of the first year of the current president’s term, but also that it is just days until a huge holiday.  That said, there is so much it is tough to decide what to lead with, but we cannot resist the temptation . . .

Huck v Palin

Remember last week when we brought up a press release from one of the right-to-life groups assailing Palin’s pro-life bona fides?  Well, a blogger has identified the RTL group as Huck hawks.  And, when questioned, he got more evidence.  Prior to press time here, a debate over this question had broken out at another site -  examples here and here.

There is a bottom line to all this – there may be no direct connection between Huckabee and those bad actors, or there may be, I have no idea – but Huckabee has relied upon and encouraged through a lack of admonition the tactics, slanders and viciousness of these groups.  As is pointed out above, his website links to them.  Like the comments on his old campaign site, it is what Huckabee does not do that is at issue here.

Consider this:  Our current president has no direct ties to the Code Pink, Daily Kos wacko wing of the left.  But, during the campaign, he never chided them and their over-the-top antics either – he talked about bridges and “reaching out.”  Now he governs like he is from them, almost directly.

Huckabee needs to repudiate these kinds of tactics if they are done on his behalf.  It is a matter of simple decency.

The Left Cannot Take A Joke

Admittedly, it is a joke that is in less than good taste, even if it does produce an initial chortle, but people like this really need to relax a little.  In case you don’t know what I am referring to, look up Psalm 109:8 and think Obama.  What is truly bothersome is that the left used rhetoric regarding Bush that was far more pointed and “threatening” than what they are all exercised about here.

Political rhetoric has gotten out of hand, and civility is called for, but the left is clearly setting up for censorship here.  They really need to get over themselves.

Giuliani . . .

. . . Looks like he is going to run for Senate, not Governor of NY.  That’s great news, it puts the Dems in Congress on notice that they are making themselves vulnerable with their current actions, not to mention Rudy would make a fine Senator.

However, this has led to a bunch of speculation that:

Giuliani could use a Senate seat as a stepping stone to run for President in 2012 – rather than run for re-election to the Senate.

Nah!  He blew it too badly last time.  Not to mention it was a self-inflicted wound.  Voters don’t usually give a second chance after something like that.

But Really, It Has Continued To Be All Palin All The Time

CNN looks at the question of whether she is after office or just making money.  That’s the right question to ask, but for the record, there is nothing wrong with making money – unless she sucks all the air out of the room for the serious politicians.  No danger of that yet, it’s too early.

Politico reports on the fact that the Republican Governor’s Association is in a bit of a quandary about what she’s up to and how to react to her.   CNN looked at the same thing, with a tighter focus on the recent gubernatorial races.

Chris Cillizza did the number of Palin’s book tours.  He points out that even if she is just after a career, she is doing reasonable politics.

Of course, people also used the Palin blitz as an excuse to look even deeper.  Cal Thomas thinks she needs to study up a little, but that she has some formidable skills, and wonders what those skills portend for the future of the GOP.

And Rod Dreher thinks most of us just do not get it – Palin or anyone else.  But then that is Dreher, and a significant bunch of younger religious conservatives.

And before we leave the 2012 hopefuls completely behind us, our favorite wrote a great op-ed last week.

But Speaking Of The Future Of The GOP:

A recent survey shows:

. . . most Republicans would rather see candidates who would have a poor chance of winning election as long as they agree with them on issues.

That’s a huge problem if it holds.  One cannot build a coalition that way, and coalitions are how we win; how either party wins.  I am ashamed to say this, but much of the blame for that lies with Evangelicals.  In our community, as this blog’s audience knows, doctrine defines faith, doctrine defines what it means to be “a Christian.”  Therefore, doctrine must define politics as well – at least that’s how the thinking goes.  When you combine that with the fear that as Christians we are being victimized (see Cal Thomas above for more on this – it’s good stuff) and you can see the desire for a sort of political martyrdom to emerge.

What’s sad is that such fails to realize that in America there is no need for martyrdom.  In America, our political process allows us to change things without such drastic measures.  It can be hard, hard work, but we can do it.  And as people of faith, we have a secret weapon – our faith is the best instrument available to change people’s minds if only we will use it as such.  You want to eliminate abortion – don’t worry about the law, worry about evangelism.  You convert enough people, and in America, the law will take care of itself.

And speaking of serious politics, consider this from CNN:

Representatives from some of the top 2008 GOP presidential campaigns gathered in Washington, D.C. Thursday to urge the Republican National Committee to lock in a 2012 primary calendar as early as possible to avoid the confusion that dogged the early stages of last year’s nomination contest. One campaign manager took his recommendations a step further and suggested ending the traditional first-in-the-nation statuses of Iowa, New Hampshire, and South Carolina.

An RNC panel headed by party chairman Michael Steele invited the campaigns to share their views as it considers numerous possible changes to the process the party will use to nominate a candidate to challenge President Barack Obama in 2012.

Something has to break here.  The ideological tendencies we just discussed are regionalized, and changing the primary schedule would reduce some of the regional influence and allow us to better build the coalition we need, regardless of who the candidate is.

Religion at “War”

As reported in the NY Times and the Washington Times:

More than 150 leaders across a spectrum of conservative Christianity on Friday released a 4,700-word document vowing civil disobedience if they are forced to take part in “anti-life acts” or bless gay marriages.

Called the “Manhattan Declaration,” the six-page, single-spaced document was drafted by Prison Fellowship founder Charles Colson, an evangelical, and Princeton University professor Robert P. George, a Roman Catholic, and included a bevy of Catholic, Anglican and Orthodox bishops, archbishops and cardinals as signatories along with dozens of clergy and laity.

Archbishop of Washington Donald W. Wuerl is one of the signatories.

“Throughout the centuries, Christianity has taught that civil disobedience is not only permitted, but sometimes required,” says the document which cited civil rights icon Martin Luther King and his willingness to go to jail for his beliefs.

This is to be applauded – this is not lying down and accepting martyrdom, like we looked at in the preceding section – this is using an effective political tool to change American politics.  It is also a particularly effective tool in this instance given the citation of its originator in the U.S. and our current President.  Note that it is also very specific.  This tactic has to be carefully targeted to be useful.

“War” In Religion

Phillip Yancey is a bit left for my taste, but this is good and it speaks for itself.

And here is a guy we need to interview on the whole Mormon question thing.

“War” on Religion

Australia and Scientology.  I have always thought Scientology was a business hiding behind religious tax exemption laws, but that is easy to say and very difficult to parse legally.  I find the belief/behavior distinction in this piece a great place to start, and it is one Mormons should be more than passingly familiar with.

Finally, more on “Christians caused the crash.“  Thankfully, I have not seen the story get much traction.

Some added thoughts from Lowell . . .

Well, Huck does seem to have a problem repudiating the unsavory acts and statements of his backers, which says much about both the man and many of his people.  About Huck, it says that he is . . . well, cowardly.  About his core followers, Huck’s “repudiation problem” shows that they are an unforgiving lot and he must toe the line or risk losing their ardent support. It doesn’t make the man seem very secure in his position at the head of that pack, does it? Then again, few politicians are.

As for Rudy, I think he’s a better executive than a legislator, but having him in the Senate means one less Democrat there, which is important when they have a 60-vote majority.

Sarah Palin:  What are we going to do with Governor Palin?  I think Dreher nails it:

[S]he is so far from being capable of being president of the United States it’s not even funny. I know, I know, this isn’t news, but you’d think that if there was anything more to her in terms of intellectual seriousness and judgment than we saw last fall, she’d have brought it out in a memoir she had most of a year to write with the help of a professional writer. But there’s no there there. I’m not saying she’s a bad person — I don’t believe she’s a bad person at all — but I am saying she’s not a credible national political leader.

I don’t mean to pile on.  Gov. Palin is an exciting, admirable and likable conservative politician.  The Left’s and the MSM’s reaction to her is primarily because of that, not because of faults in Palin.  She’s just not quite ready for prime time and probably won’t be.  As a Romney fan, I do hope he develops at least some of Palin’s ability to connect with an audience.

John links above to a Deseret News article about Noah Feldman’s speech at BYU last week.  I found these paragraphs, about how Romney’s religious challenge was different from John Kennedy’s in 1960, compelling:

. . . Feldman said Romney also had to address the issue of religion; however, because Romney wanted to appeal to values-based voters, he couldn’t, like JFK, say that religion was irrelevant in his public life.

Romney declared his belief in Jesus Christ as the son of God but declined to discuss his LDS religion further, saying it would be a violation of the Constitution, which prohibits a religious test for public service eligibility.

“The question (is) what alternatives (are there), either for Mitt Romney or for other politicians in the future who find themselves in a similar position of believing … that religion does matter in the public sphere?” Feldman asked.

One answer is to increase awareness and religious understanding by engaging in the study of comparative religion, Feldman said. Such study requires members of a religion to momentarily set aside their beliefs and look for common, uniting bonds among belief systems.

Although there may be some not ready or willing to do that, BYU and universities in general constitute an “unbelievable resource for generating conversation, and therefore generating certain kinds of change,” Feldman said. “People talking is crucial. So don’t wait. If you wait, it won’t happen.”

(Emphasis added.)  The bolded language above summarizes exactly what this humble blog has been trying to do for over 3.5 years.  We’ll keep at it.  And yes, there is an interview with Noah Feldman in our future.

Posted in Reading List | 4 Comments » |  Print this post |  Email This Post