Because ushering in minority party status for the GOP seems to be all the rage these days, Erick Erickson of RedState has added yet another requirement for being a good Republican. In response to Rudy’s view that the Bible is something other than completely, entirely, one-hundred-percent literally true, Erickson had this to say:
Note to Rudy: We change for God, God and his word do not change for us.
This commentary was in response to Rudy’s thoughtful, distinctly Roman Catholic reply to a creepy YouTuber’s inquiry into the GOP candidates’ views on the Bible. Rudy’s answer, which was probably too Jesuit and intellectual for even lots of orthodox Catholics, was that the Bible is partly literal, partly allegorical, was written by man and is open to interpretation. In fact, Lisa Schiffren over at Catholic-laden NRO was pleased with Rudy’s response:
Giuliani gave the answer, not of a “godless urbanite,” as one reader recently called him, but of a man with a serious Catholic education who is secular but thoughtful, and not anti-religious.
Now, a conservative Protestant like Erickson is not likely to agree with this interpretation, and that’s fine. That’s what a pluralistic society is all about. But if Erickson is going to get steamed about this question, it should be due to the fact that the question was included in the first place even though the candidates’ views on the Bible is wholly irrelevant to the job for which they are applying. Instead, Erickson seems to suggest that to be a good Republican, or at least to lead the Republican Party, one is now required to hold certain theological views. Such a notion is absurd. Political parties and political movements are by their very nature secular, and do not require adherence to any specific religious tenets. The moment the Republican Party’s parameters narrow only to include those with a theological worldview compatible with conservative Protestantism is the moment that the Republican Party is reduced to minority status for a generation.
I wouldn’t be so worked up over all of this if I hadn’t seen the polls of Republican debate-watchers who, as Matthew Miller reports below, have deemed Mike Huckabee the man of the hour by a landslide. Republicans at the grassroots seemed to have embraced Huckabee’s hardcore social conservatism and economic populism over all-around conservative alternatives like McCain and Romney. And that’s why I call upon all conservatives who care about actually, you know, winning elections and building a majority to heed my words of warning. The GOP is heading closer and closer to the precipice that William Jennings Bryan’s Democratic Party fell from over a century ago. All the characteristics are present: the economic populism, the religion-based agenda, and the geographic base in the South and Plains States. Those who don’t see any harm in this route need to do some research and discover the level of electoral success Bryan’s party enjoyed between 1896 and 1932, when it spent over three decades in the political wilderness as the nation was dominated by the McKinley/TR/Taft GOP, based in the North and the West. But if all today’s conservative base types care about is winning elections in a few Southern states, then keep on shrinking the tent. Heck, add a religious test to the whole mess. And I, along with millions of other Americans, will enjoy my newfound status as an Independent, concerning myself with science and history and other assorted topics as a majoritarian Democratic Party wins election after election after election.
November 29th, 2007 at 1:41 am
Wow, did Mitt stumble at the debate or what? Analyst Michael Eisenstadt wrote a great piece tonight about the lessons of Annapolis and puts the debate between Rudy vs. Mitt in that context. Pretty provocative stuff that points to Rudy as the obvious candidate for the GOP: http://michaeleisenstadt.com/2007/11/28/a-lesson-learned/
November 29th, 2007 at 2:19 am
DaveG, to be fair Erick didn’t say that what Rudy said was a reason not to vote for him, he just expressed his outrage at the statement. Now, I wouldn’t think he should have definitely have that level of outrage, but you’re putting words in Erick’s mouth to suggest that he thinks Rudy should lose because of that.
I agree with you that Rudy’s position on such a theological issue is irrelavent. I agree with Rudy that parts of the Bible are literal and parts are symbolic – Jonah and the Whale is one of the literal parts. But I seriously doubt any legislation about Jonah and the Whale is going to come up. And I think I have much more serious theological differences with all of the candidates than Jonah and the Whale, but it doen’t really matter. I don’t want my politicians legislating about politics.
As far as the party becoming a minor party if we go the religous ecconomically liberal route. That may be true, but I don’t think things for the party are particularly good if we go the Secular libertarian route either. You would get closer in Blue states, but likely still not win enough to make up for losing a bunch of Redstates. Now, I don’t think a Guiliani coalition would cause such a coaliton to happen, but he might move in that direction. So, I think people like Metro who seem to think that we could just kick evangelicals to the curb and do just fine may be just a bit delusional. Part of the reason that Rudy is doing well in general election matchups is because Evangelicals support him, were not seeing what it would be like if SoCons were cast to the curb. Like I said I don’t think a Rudy nomination would have to mean casting SoCons to the Curb, but some of you seem to wish it would mean that.
November 29th, 2007 at 2:29 am
I’ll add this, I think maybe it would have been smart for Rudy to have just said he believed in the Bible, but how he thought it should be interpreted was irrelavent. Not that Rudy’s answered mattered to me, but it probably did to other people.
November 29th, 2007 at 2:34 am
DaveG, hear, hear.
November 29th, 2007 at 2:34 am
Another point to make, I don’t know that you can really make comparisons of the electoral landscape from early 1900 to now. The countries changed alot in the last hundred years. Also, I think Huck would have a pretty good shot if he actually won the nomination. If he get past the FiCons in the Republican party than there will be even less problem in the general. I don’t think Fiscal conservatism is all that popular with swing voters. I would say Social Conservatism may actually be more of a vote, because even though the country is more fiscally conservative than socially so, the Social Cons are the ones that care more than the Social liberals. A lot of swing voters don’t really have one particualar idelogy and charisma counts for alot with them. Therefore, I think Huck would have a pretty good shot at the general.
November 29th, 2007 at 2:41 am
“Those who don’t see any harm in this route need to do some research and discover the level of electoral success Bryan’s party enjoyed between 1896 and 1932,”
Yes, and remember, that party also had a base, and an efficient political machine in the urban, immigrant, working-class. And still they lost every presidential except ’12 (three way), and ’16 (barely).
“I, along with millions of other Americans, will enjoy my newfound status as an Independent, concerning myself with science and history and other assorted topics as a majoritarian Democratic Party wins election after election after election.”
Hey Dave, y’all will be welcome to hang out with the rest of the historians and scientists in the majority!
November 29th, 2007 at 7:14 am
DaveG,
Spot on Dave. I didn’t like Rudy’s answer to the Bible question (Jonah in the Whale isn’t an example of an allegorical part of the Bible), but it doesn’t matter to me politically. Rudy’s not running on a religion based candidacy, therefore his views on religious subtly is irrelevant.
November 29th, 2007 at 7:59 am
DaveG, hear, hear.
.
November 29th, 2007 at 8:02 am
Hey Dave, y’all will be welcome to hang out with the rest of the historians and scientists in the majority!
No, because you people are also thieves with warped philosophies about the role of government.
People like DaveG, Metro, and I are small-government Republicans. We would never be able to fit in with people that think that it’s acceptable to hit up the American taxpayer anytime there’s a program that your leaders think needs funding or a new bureaucracy that you think sounds interesting enough to institute.
November 29th, 2007 at 8:44 am
Huckabee himself affirmed that parts of the Bible are meant to be allegorical. He cites the passage in the Gospels where Jesus states that if your eye causes you to sin, you should pluck it out.
I don’t know of ANYONE who lives that one literally. I thought Rudy had the right train of thought, but it was a little muddled, particularly when he said that parts of the Bible are meant to be interpreted in “a modern context.” I’m not sure what that is supposed to mean- that the authors intended their words to have no meaning until our era, or that their words should have an ever changing meaning?
Anyway, Rudy gave a decent answer, and as noted, a farily Catholic one. The short answer is, the Bible is literal when its author intends it to be literal, allegorical when its author intends it to be allegorical, etc….
Despite what some fundamentalist Protestants say, no one truly takes every word of the Bible literally. I don’t know anyone who has plucked out their own eye, or who believes that Jesus is a vine.
November 29th, 2007 at 9:13 am
The fact remains, as one Catholic to another, Rudy gave the answer that almost every single other Catholic in America would have given.
November 29th, 2007 at 9:51 am
As a recovering Catholic, I agree.
TLG, I was thinking of you this morning as the kids were getting ready for school. I would not allow a child of mine to spend as much time on the internet as you do, particularly not a site frequented mostly by adults. You have given out too much private information. I say this because I don’t want you to duplicate these mistakes on other sites. I know you believe you are mature and related better to adults. DO NOT BELIEVE IT. An adult will take advantage of that. Please be careful with who you chat with and scrub your personal webpages of personal information.
November 29th, 2007 at 10:08 am
TLG, I was thinking of you this morning as the kids were getting ready for school. I would not allow a child of mine to spend as much time on the internet as you do, particularly not a site frequented mostly by adults. You have given out too much private information. I say this because I don’t want you to duplicate these mistakes on other sites. I know you believe you are mature and related better to adults. DO NOT BELIEVE IT. An adult will take advantage of that. Please be careful with who you chat with and scrub your personal webpages of personal information.
Oh, shut up.
November 29th, 2007 at 10:37 am
Dear Lord TLG! Trust me, Feltcher did not mean anything by that and was speaking from the heart. I’m sure that no condescension was intended.
November 29th, 2007 at 10:50 am
Here’s a topic in which I would have to agree with Metro and TLG. That question doesn’t belong in a presidential debate.
They could have also asked, “do you believe every word in this Koran is false??? EVERY. . . WORD. . . FALSE?
And, by the way, you cannot assign a truth value to a word–only a statement. That supposedly fundamentalist YouTuber (probably a Methodist;) should take a class in logic at his local community college, come to think of it, Anderson Cooper should take a class in logic since he parroted the “every single word” question, just like he should have checked to make sure that Brigadier General wasn’t a Clinton operative.
November 29th, 2007 at 10:59 am
Dave,
You know that I am your biggest fan. But I must disagree with you on The Huckster.
Comparing Mike Huckabee (in persona) to William Jennings Bryan or others in that mold such as Huey Long is a bridge to far.
Mike Huckabee is a man who is utterly devoid of pretension. I can speak to this personally as I have been able to spend time with the Governor. I just cannot see him molding, by the sheer force of his personality, an new GOP based on fire-brand populism and Evangelical litmus tests.
I could accept the argument that he would perhaps be just more George W. Bush. But venturing into William Jennings Bryan territory and the Democratic Party of the ’20′s and ’30′s is probably pushing it.
November 29th, 2007 at 11:51 am
Kavon,
It seems to me that nothing you’ve said conflicts with DaveG’s contentions. Most people agree that Mike Huckabee seems sincere, and personable. But, William Jennings Bryant had those qualities as well. He was “The Great Commoner” for goodness sakes. He had Ciceroian rhetorical abilities. He believed fiercely in traditionalism, fiercely in Christianity, and fiercely in any number of causes economic liberals trumpeted. As far as I can, you can’t get any more “devoid of pretension”. You can argue whether Huckabee’s positions and rhetoric match Bryant’s, but it seems to me no answer to say “Huckabee’s very sincere, and is thus no Bryant”.
November 29th, 2007 at 1:09 pm
DaveG,
You and I come from the same space politically, and are (I think) rooting for the same candidate. Huckabee is probably at my bottom of the big five, possibly even below Ron Paul. And the last thing I would like to see the GOP do would be to become a fiscally center-left, socially conservative party (which is bass ackwards of how a government should be).
But I think you underestimate the power of such a party. William Jennings Bryan after all came fairly close to winning the popular vote in 1896, and was within 8 points in 1900 against a successful wartime President.
More importantly, the South and West have enormously increased their electoral heft, while northeastern states will have lost their heft (PA and MA will have lost half their EVs from that point after the 2010 census). Brytan stil would have lost the electoral vote in 1896 under the current electoral distribution, but it would have been closer than the electoral drubbing he took then. Indeed, if you flipped IN, KY, ND and WV to his side (probably for a populist candidate today) you probably would have a Bryan victory.
Point is, I think you vastly underestimate how powerful such a fusion could be. You would lose the libertarian wing of the party (myself included), but would really threaten in groups that are naturally aligned with the GOP on social issues, but are turned off by the economic royalism as critics call it. I’m not sure which group is bigger, but I tend to think that the GOP could end up with the better of that argument.
A Huckabee/Clinton matchup would be truly fascinating. Clinton could actually be painted as the candidate of big business interests in that matchup, and in the current economic environment, I’m not sure that works to her advantage.
November 29th, 2007 at 1:14 pm
Put another way, what red states does such a candidate lose that Bush lost? Maybe Virginia, maybe AZ, maybe CO, maybe NV. Don’t get me wrong, those states are enough to give a Democratic victory, but its not a very big one, and I’m not sure how a populist candidate plays out there. Maybe Florida too, I guess.
November 29th, 2007 at 3:40 pm
TLG writes (and presumes to write for others),
“We would never be able to fit in with people that think that it’s acceptable to hit up the American taxpayer anytime there’s a program that your leaders think needs funding or a new bureaucracy that you think sounds interesting enough to institute.”
It works like this TLG. First thing you do is become an independent. Then you experience a period of profound liberation of the mind, where you actually shed all those narrow-minded tropes that you currently utilize to demonize people on the other side. Not being on either side, you suddenly have to try to anyalyze the landscape on your own.
Then you realize that what used to be the “other side” is somewhat different than you had imagined. You begin to realize for instance, that the “reflexive big government” approach is a myth – fostered by people who are truly anti-government (government is the problem) – who want to paint their opposition is a mirror image of themselves.
Almost all of the liberals I know view government as an institution that can and should do certain things, and not do many other things. We are not government maximalists. There are just certain things that we percieve as necessary to a well-functioning society and necessary to true freedom. We believe in more government regulation than you do, because business is made up of human beings, flawed beings, and there is a need for policing just like we have on the streets. Toys should not be painted with lead paint. Industries should not be free to dump toxic chemicals into the environment that sustains life. ETc.
No time here for an extended explanation. Just giving you a heads up that freeing yourself from an ideological approach to politics will greatly improve your chances of arriving at an accurate model of the political landscape.
November 29th, 2007 at 6:09 pm
Tano, do you honestly believe that you are a non-ideological political observer who belongs to a party that doesn’t (or even only rarely) uses narrow-minded tropes to demonize people on the other side?
And I’d be a lot more sympathetic to your point of view if the list of “certain things that [you] perceive as necessary to a well-functioning society” wasn’t never-ending, if the “fair share” of the rich wasn’t always higher than whatever it currently is, and if the various levels of government didn’t already spend one dollar of every three that this country produces annually (and yet somehow that still isn’t enough).
November 29th, 2007 at 7:50 pm
[...] of My Election Analysis chimed in with an interesting comment on Dave’s Huck-related post from last night: …the last thing I would like to see the GOP do would be to become a fiscally [...]