More on Rev. Huckster

JeffC, Picking up from the Romney blog below, I doubt that you and conservative pundit Charles Krauthammer agree on much, but I think you will applaud his latest analysis of the Battle of the Bible between Huckabee and Romney.

The Rev. Huckster's flock should take note as well.

In today's WashPost, Krauthammer writes:

"Huckabee has exploited Romney's Mormonism with an egregious subtlety. Huckabee is running a very effective ad in Iowa about religion. "Faith doesn't just influence me," he says on camera, "it really defines me." The ad then hails him as a "Christian leader."

"Forget the implications of the idea that being a "Christian leader" is some special qualification for the presidency of a country whose Constitution (Article VI) explicitly rejects any religious test for office. Just imagine that Huckabee were running one-on-one in Iowa against Joe Lieberman. (It's a thought experiment. Stay with me.) If he had run the same ad in those circumstances, it would have raised an outcry. The subtext -- who's the Christian in this race? -- would have been too obvious to ignore, the appeal to bigotry too clear.

"Well, Huckabee is running against Romney (the other GOP candidates are non-factors in Iowa), and he knows that many Christian conservatives, particularly those who have an affinity with Huckabee's highly paraded evangelical Christianity, consider Romney's faith a decidedly non-Christian cult.

"Huckabee has been asked about this view that Mormonism is a cult. He dodges and dances. "If I'm invited to be the president of a theological school, that'll be a perfectly appropriate question," he says, "but to be the president of the United States, I don't know that that's going to be the most important issue that I'll be facing when I'm sworn in."

"Hmmm. So it is an issue, Huckabee avers. But not a very important one. And he's not going to pronounce upon it. Nice straddle, leaving the question unanswered and still open -- the kind of maneuver one comes to expect from slick former governors of Arkansas lusting for the presidency.

"And by Huckabee's own logic, since he is not running for head of a theological college, what is he doing proclaiming himself a "Christian leader" in an ad promoting himself for president? Answer: Having the issue every which way. Seeming to take the high road of tolerance by refusing to declare Mormonism a cult, indeed declaring himself above the issue -- yet clearly playing to that prejudice by leaving the question ambiguous, while making sure everyone knows that he, for one, is a "Christian leader."

"The God of the Founders, the God on the coinage, the God for whom Lincoln proclaimed Thanksgiving day is the ineffable, ecumenical, nonsectarian Providence of the American civil religion whose relation to this blessed land is without appeal to any particular testament or ritual. Every mention of God in every inaugural address in American history refers to the deity in this kind of all-embracing, universal, nondenominational way. (The one exception: William Henry Harrison. He caught cold delivering that inaugural address. Thirty-one days later, he was dead. Draw your own conclusion.) I suspect that neither Jefferson's Providence nor Washington's Great Author nor Lincoln's Almighty would look kindly on the exploitation of religious differences for political gain. It is un-American. It is unfortunate that Romney has had to justify himself in response."

That last paragraph is a real keeper. Nicely done, Charles.

Krauthammer on Huckabee

Submitted by muddle on Fri, 12/07/2007 - 7:34am.

I think you are easily impressed.

I think Krauthammer is grasping at straws here. Huckabee's stance makes perfect sense without projecting such ulterior motives onto him.

It's really very simple. He is in fact, an evangelical. He sees his own convictions as relevant to who he is, and believes that he is the right man for the job. He also knows that a rather large class of voters has, until the beginning of his ascent, been very disappointed in the republican fare. So it makes perfect sense for him to let those voters know who he is in that regard.

Further, I can guarantee you that he does think that Mormonism is a cult--a latter day Christian heresy. (Have a look at my recent reply to Jeffc on Romney and you'll begin to understand why evangelicals have this opinion.) But he knows that airing that opinion will amount to the mudslinging that he has been at pains to avoid.

Imagine (thought experiment, bear with me) that he is running against Bill Clinton and is asked, "Do you think that Mr. Clinton is an adulterer and a fornicator?" Well, he probably would think this of Bill CLinton, but would likely reply, "That is not for me to say." If this is "evasive," it is only the sort of evasion that is dictated by both politeness and prudence. Indeed, this would remain true even if his campaign people take pains to let voters know that he and his childhood sweetheart are happily married.

Do you suppose that Hillary or Rudy or the others are without opinions on religion? If they are, then they are very shallow people. Ask Hillary point blank, "Do you think that Catholicism is true?" Presumably she does not: she is not a Catholic. Ah, but what to say when you are running for office? A simple, "Well, no, I don't, actually" can make sensational headlines: CLINTON SAYS CATHOLICISM A 'FALSE RELIGION'.

I fail to see the problem in Huckabee's running on his own merits, emphasizing personal features that he knows will be appealing to a significant number of voters, and refraining from voicing negative views about the other candidates' religious beliefs.

And "egregious subtlety"? This is a new one for me. This is a particularly egregious case of someone not saying things that they might have said but would have been offensive.

So far, his critics have yet to come up with significant criticisms of the man. Next we'll hear, "He's too nice" or "He used to be a fat guy and should probably be viewed as a recovering fat guy who could plunge back in as the result of one weekend of binge-eating. Do you want a potential fat guy for President?"

______________

Let it be known there is a fountain
That was not made by the hands of man.

login to post comments

Huck

Submitted by bowser on Fri, 12/07/2007 - 11:48am.

Actually I am too easily UNimpressed, Muddle. Gotta work on that.

Krauthammer is exactly right: Huck is as slick as Willie. He's trying to leverage his religiosity for political gain, while dodging the sticky issues that brings up. It won't work, but like I've said before he'll make a dandy talk-show host.

login to post comments

Huckabee Luckabee

Submitted by muddle on Fri, 12/07/2007 - 8:50pm.

We'll see. If you are right, then I'm right behind you in the criticisms. I just don't see the problem at all. As of today, I think I know what motivates the guy, and I like what I see. But time will tell.

______________

Let it be known there is a fountain
That was not made by the hands of man.

login to post comments

The Very Nature of Religion is to seperate ourselves

Submitted by Richard Hobbs on Fri, 12/07/2007 - 9:07am.

I'm often surprised that most people tend to not understand the tenets of their own faith, and have no idea what others believe.

The fact is, most faiths, protestants and Catholics included, are by their very nature, inclusive, and not exclusive.

Mormons probably don't believe most of what their faith teaches, as does those from the baptist, methodist, and catholic denominations. But this doesn't mean that the tenets of their faith do not specifically alienate those that do not fully believe as they do.

Catholicism is deemed to be a cult by hard core evangelicals. I mean, if some protestants have a problem with Romney's faith's proposition that God is but an existence upon another level, then how much more do you think they have with a faith that beseeches help via a human, called Mary.

Romney's Mormon, Gulliani is Catholic, and Huckabee is an evangelical that believes God created the earth and the heavens in 6 days. Does this have an effect on the decisions that will be made in our Primaries, YES. In the general election YES, but to a much lesser degree.

I just wish someone could fit in the shoes of Ronald Reagan again. Then again, in early 1980, I was pulling for George Bush over Reagan, so I have been wrong before.

login to post comments