"No religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States."
This video is from Catholic Vote and will run during tomorrow’s inaugural:
It’s a little different from our usual material here, but seems quite appropriate.
Sphere: Related Content
Posted in Issues | Comment on this post » | 
Print this post
| 
Email This Post
This video seems especially appropriate for this blog, at this time, for several reasons. It addresses secularism and the role of religion in politics, as well as the critical difference between separation of church and state and the separation of church and politics. In the wake of the Prop 8 battles and the Romney candidacy, what topic is more appropriate? Finally, it is from a speech by the late Neal A. Maxwell, who was a member of the Quorum of Twelve Apostles of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Mitt Romney has said that Elder Maxwell’s thinking was a profound influence on him, and our blogfather, Hugh Hewitt, was a friend and great admirer of Elder Maxwell.
The video contains several allusions to uniquely Mormon scripture, but we hope our readers do not find that offensive. Almost any American religious conservative will find the ideas expressed very compatible with his or her own.
Sphere: Related Content
Posted in Issues, Proposition 8, Understanding Religion | 3 Comments » | Print this post
| Email This Post
The doom-and-gloom predictions for the election are piling up. Not my taste – I’m in this to the end and we are winning until we actually lose. As Geraghty points out the polls are swinging, and at this point in ‘04 we thought it was in the bag for. . . Kerry?! This thing is not over.
Nonetheless, in a post at Beliefnet, Rod Dreher looks at Christopher Buckley’s recent resignation from NR seeing disaster. But the most interesting thing he has to say is this:
It was not religious conservatives who caused the GOP to abandon all pretense of fiscal discipline. It was not religious conservatives who brought us the war in Iraq. It was not religious conservatives who brought us Jack Abramoff (though Ralph Reed had something to do with it). Mind you, religious conservatives rarely if ever stood up to any of this, but to say that the “kooks” brought about the collapse of the GOP is simply wrong. It was the Establishment that did it. Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz — these guys are not religious kooks. Neither is George W. Bush. And though he presents himself as a churchman, let no one be under the impression that Tom DeLay did what he did for the glory of the Lord. I am certain that in the wake of the coming disaster for the GOP, there will be an attempt to scapegoat the religious right, so that the Republican Establishment — especially the national security and economic establishment — can escape its own reckoning. We religious conservatives have to accept our share of the blame for what’s happened, but we cannot let ourselves get scapegoated. The things we wanted most of all — Supreme Court justices favorable to the things we believe in — turn out to be the only undeniable triumphs of the Bush years, from a conservative point of view.
Again, it ain’t over ’til it’s over, and even if this election is the disaster that Dreher seems to think it is going to be, all those issues he raises are not the heart of the problem. There was only one candidate that might have been able to hold the coalition together – Mitt Romney – and it was Evangelical conservatives in their blind, label-following view, that trotted off after a loser like Huckabee and blew it up.
A bit later in the piece, Dreher says this:
There is a conservative Establishment — a political establishment, yes, but also a think-tank establishment and an opinion-leader establishment — that has become ossified in its thinking and, over time, more interested in policing its heretics . . .
Now, when you stack that up against Joel Belz’s deeply bigoted writing, and Mike Huckabee’s “innocent question” to the NYTimes, you have to think you are looking at the definitional case of the “pot calling the kettle black.”
Furthermore, let’s assume, for just a minute, that all those issues he raises are the heart of the problem. Had the religious right been less myopic and more about the business of governance – had they been in the middle of those things instead of clutching tightly to their few social issues and otherwise not seeming to want to get their hands dirty – then maybe they could have prevented or mitigated the damage done by them. As Dreher points out, “Mind you, religious conservatives rarely if ever stood up to any of this . . . .”
If religious conservatives want to be taken seriously in politics, then it is time for them to do politics seriously. This gadabout, “politics is really beneath us,” stuff has just got to stop. And claiming to speak for them by brushing aside that very “I am above you” attitude as insignificant and pointing the finger at the other guy is not a way to do politics seriously.
Oh sure, Dreher says, “We religious conservatives have to accept our share of the blame for what’s happened . . . ,” which is where he should have ended. In this individual religious conservative’s experience, the “conservative political establishment” has been more than willing to work with me, as long as I was willing to work with them.
I think it was Jesus that said something about planks, specks, and eyes. I think religious conservatives might want to keep that little parable in mind before they go making sure they do not get any more blame than “they deserve.”
Lowell adds: I agree fully with what John has said, and I’ll add my own expression of disgust over Dreher’s insistence on treating religious conservatives as a discrete, insular voter bloc within conservatism (and within the GOP, to a lesser extent). I never thought I’d see the day when religious voters are flinging recriminations at “those other guys in the movement.” In politics, there is no leadership in emphasizing differences within your own alliance.
Besides, as John notes, Dreher is far too forgiving of his own group: “religious conservatives rarely if ever stood up to any of this.” Well, isn’t that a stinging indictment? For a group that wants to have such power within the conservative movement, it simply will not do to blame everyone else for errors, when your group did nothing significant to stop those errors!
It seems Mr. Dreher wants to have it both ways: To remain “pure” and free from responsibility for a conservative/GOP debacle, but also to stand by and do nothing to prevent the debacle. These are not people I want in my foxhole with me.
Sphere: Related Content
Posted in Electability, Issues, News Media Bias, Political Strategy | 2 Comments » | Print this post
| Email This Post
The volume of discussion regarding Mitt Romney as a Veep possibility has dropped to near zero. There has been a notable drop in all Veep prognostication, but in what little discussion is going on Romney seems to be completely off the radar now. This precipitous drop in Romney-talk has come directly on the heels of the “evangelical warning” of a couple of weeks ago. One must wonder if there is a cause-and-effect relationship.
Now, given Richard Land’s leadership – weak, but far more sober, concerns that we looked at on Friday – if you are John McCain, you must certainly include the “evangelical warning” issue in your deliberations. John McCain, like all nominees in a hard fought primary, finds himself needing to unite the party if he has a chance to win the general. Given McCain’s history with Evangelicals, that is the place where he has to do the greatest work to heal the rift, or at least build a sufficient bridge to allow him to win. If you are McCain, caution towards Evangelicals is called for.
So, from the standpoint of a Romney supporter, this is where the weakness of Land’s discussion of the bigoted 20% becomes so important. If the majority of the reasonable within the Evangelical fold are willing to speak out strongly against the bigoted 20%, then a Romney Veep nod begins to make sense because McCain knows he can rely on the vast majority of Evangelicals. But, when you get tepid statements like those Land gave, McCain has to view Evangelicals as “soft” when it comes to a Romney nod and respond accordingly.
What at is really insidious about that bit of political calculation is that in the end, the reasonable (and most powerful) Evangelical leaders have first ceded their personal authority to the bigoted minority, since they are now effectively setting policy. Second, by contributing to losing not only the primaries, but also, in essence, the race for Veep, they reduce Evangelical political influence in general.
So, where are we? Well, where we have been since this whole thing started: the biggest loser in a Romney loss is Evangelicals.
There is another related question. If Romney does not get the Veep job, will the Tim LaHayes of the world try to take credit? The answer is absolutely! Because, as we analyzed above, the current Evangelical leadership will have effectively ceded authority to the bigoted minority and hence to the minority’s spokesmen, it would be natural for those spokesmen to try and leverage that into a larger leadership role.
What is sad is that they will be attempting to take command of a sinking ship. The current leadership could right the ship – they could in fact bring the ship successfully into port, cargo intact, payday perhaps delayed, but nonetheless preserved. All they have to do is be willing to throw the pretenders “overboard.”
It is really time for Evangelicals to get serious if they want to have real political influence.
Lowell adds a little speculation: What to make of all this? Richard Land made his statement knowing that McCain would hear it. Land therefore knew he might well be torpedoing Romney’s chances for veep. It was a pivotal moment, potentially, and Land must have known that.
Of course, land Might have said:
I think Mitt Romney would be a solid choice. Of course I have significant theological disagreements with Romney’s religion, but I have disagreements with many religions. Romney’s positions on the issues Southern Baptists care about are right, and he is very well-positioned to help Senator McCain win the presidency. I recognize that some Southern Baptists have strong theological disagreements with Governor Romney, but those are unrelated to how he would serve as vice president, and I hope everyone will see it that way.
Land would say that in my dreams, I guess.
If he did, and if Romney got the nod, then Land and his group would be a faction that can get things done, rather than stopping things from happening. They seem to prefer the latter role. Along the way, they reinforce their image as intolerant, “my way or the highway” people. That’s certainly how this blogger sees them. It’s not an endearing image.
There very likely have been private discussions between Land and the McCain campaign as well. In his public statements I doubt Land was trying to influence McCain against choosing Romney. I do think Land was trying to preserve his own skin. I wonder if, in private, Land said to McCain’s peeple, “I like Romney, and you can pick him, but a lot of Evangelicals will stay home on election day if you do.” If so, the effect is the same.
All in all, it’s difficult to find much positive in this situation. The most qualified candidate, in my view, is being stopped because of his religion, and that of his ancestors for four or five generations. The group that is stopping him is shooting itself in the foot and making it less likely in the future that it will have the clout necessary to help promote true conservatives for the presidency. They will be seen as a bunch of mean and nasty people who played religious politics and got away with it.
At a deeper level, people like Richard Land and James Dobson will be seen as cowards who stood by and let that happen because they are terrified of their own constituencies. The hit to their credibility will be lasting.
In many ways, 2008 might be called the year of “The Great Evangelical Crack-up.” We’ll see.
John responds: I agree that this may well the the cycle that marks the end of significant evangelical influence in electoral politics, but I think it is due purely to ineptitude. I seriously doubt there have been private communications between Land and McCain, Dobson and McCain or McCain and any other Evangelical leader.
McCain does not like us that well. He is not going to reach out to us, it is really up to us to reach out to him, and I am not seeing that happen either. At bottom, the problem is too much ego at play here. McCain has too much as do these Evangelical leaders. McCain always has had, and the Evangelicals view themselves as kingmakers.
Sad fact is McCain got here without them, so why should he reach out to them. He got there because they played religious politics, split the coalition and let him. It is the Evangelicals that have a choice now. Either jettison the bigot, go to McCain hat-in-hand and join the team, requesting a Romney, or in essence give McCain and excuse to marginalize them instead of them marginalizing the bigots.
Sphere: Related Content
Posted in Candidate Qualifications, Issues, Political Strategy, Religious Bigotry | 2 Comments » | Print this post
| Email This Post
I’ve got to hand it to Jonathan Martin. Not much gets past that young man.
My question: What happens if McCain gets elected POTUS? That could happen, you know. How much influence will Dr. Dobson and his group have in a McCain White House?
Newsweek’s “On Faith” section asks,
John McCain’s spiritual guide, televangelist Rod Parsley, calls Islam a “false religion” that should be “destroyed.” Should McCain renounce Parsley? Will Islam be an issue in this year’s U.S. presidential election?
There are numerous responses from various “wise men” and “wise women.”
But . . . it appears that the hard-left pundit David Corn is the one who named Rod Parsley McCain’s “spiritual guide” in an article in Mother Jones, a journal that is not exactly a model of objectivity.
And then Newsweek devotes an entire “On Faith” section to a response to Corn’s screed? Excuse me, but doesn’t the Mother Jones piece look like a pretty lame effort to equate McCain’s endorsement by this Rod Parsley character with the Obama-Jeremiah Wright relationship?
Sphere: Related Content
Posted in Issues | Comment on this post » | Print this post
| Email This Post
Amid all the post-Romney candidacy analysis, I find most interesting the notion that Romney was “too perfect” to be president. That is because, the argument goes, he lives up to high personal standards, by all accounts, and seems extraordinarily successful and fortunate, both in business and in his personal life. On the day Eliot Spitzer resigned because of his, well, imperfect personal life, that notion seems especially fascinating.
Libby Copeland of the Washington Post is the latest to express the “too perfect” view:
Romney seemed so Mormon, so squeaky clean. His seeming normalcy isn’t the norm anymore. Maybe we understand better those who’ve strayed or failed and recovered — or, for that matter, those who aren’t fabulously successful and can’t put tens of millions into their own campaigns. Maybe we relate to the family lives of other candidates, candidates who have been divorced, who have blended families, whose children don’t all campaign with them (and may not even like them). Sure, they’re messier, but messy is authentic.
“Messy is authentic.” What an interesting way to express the difference between the real and the ideal. In other words, we like what is real because it seems familiar and comfortable to us and doesn’t make us feel inadequate, doesn’t challenge us to aspire to something better. (But wait, I thought Obama’s slogan of “Change” was what people found so inspiring about him. Maybe that’s because he’s talking about changing government, which is appealing, and not about changing ourselves, which is not.)
Now compare Ms. Copeland’s view, which seems to prevail in the MSM, with that of Kathryn Jean Lopez at National Review Online:
What a breath of fresh air the Romneys on the public stage have been. Way too often in pop culture, men are portrayed as dopes; think about just about any sitcom. The dad/husband is portrayed as a doofus. What’s wrong with having somebody in public life who’s like Mitt Romney — a capable, experienced executive who loves his country and also happens to be a God-fearing father and husband? That’s not a bad thing for Americans to see. Forgive him for being easy on the eyes.
And I’ll go one step further. I worry about a political culture that is a little too suspicious of a scandal-less, all-American-gee-whiz-this-is-the-American-dream-in-overdrive package. We should be glad that good people — who, while well-off, are not without their share of painful crosses — are willing to subject themselves to the ugliness that politics can inflict. We should be grateful that good families will make the sacrifices necessary to serve — and make those sacrifices with no guarantees they’ll succeed.
I agree with K-Lo. Let’s hear it for our political class setting a standard to which the rest of us can all aspire.
John comments: What a sad commentary it is when we want leaders “just like us” – meaning “just as screwed up as I am.” I also find it cognitively dissonant with the idea that the election is about “change.” I am reminded of high school class elections that were essentially “social group showdowns,” you know, jocks vs. nerds, stuff like that.
Frankly, what Copeland expresses is identity politics in another guise – only in some ways much worse. Instead of based on some identity group – that group being hopefully attached to some higher idea – this is pure identity, and negative identity to boot.
I also think this is Democrat politics as well – think about it, all their candidates lately come rife with extensive personal problems, thus we see the governor of NY resigning just this morning, and the foibles of the Clintons have been worked out in public for a couple fo decades now. Then there is Obama’s historical drug use. All this when guys like Evan Bayh, fairly liberal Democrat to be sure, but decent, moral and honorable human being, is relegated to second fiddle status. Do we really want to be like the Democrats?
Sphere: Related Content
Posted in Issues, News Media Bias | 1 Comment » | Print this post
| Email This Post
