Peggy Noonan has a thoughtful column today about the state of the race for the presidency, and the ultimate fate of the Republican Party. Among her observations…
The Republican race looks — at the moment — to be determined primarily by one thing, the question of religious faith. In my lifetime faith has been a significant issue in presidential politics, but not the sole determinative one. Is that changing? If it is, it is not progress.
Mike Huckabee is in the lead due, it appears, to voter approval of the depth and sincerity of his religious beliefs as lived out in his ministry as an ordained Southern Baptist. He flashes “Christian leader” over his picture in commercials; he asserts his faith is “mainstream”; his surrogates speak of Mormonism as “strange” and “definitely a factor.” Mr. Huckabee said this summer that a candidate’s faith is “subject to question,” “part of the game.”…
Mike Huckabee has faith, but is that enough?…
Christian conservatives have been rising, most recently, for 30 years in national politics, since they helped elect Jimmy Carter. They care about the religious faith of their leaders, and their interest is legitimate. Faith is a shaping force. Lincoln got grilled on it. But there is a sense in Iowa now that faith has been heightened as a determining factor in how to vote, that such things as executive ability, professional history, temperament, character, political philosophy and professed stands are secondary, tertiary. But they are not, and cannot be. They are central. Things seem to be getting out of kilter, with the emphasis shifting too far.
The great question: Does it make Mr. Huckabee, does it seal his rise, that he has acted in such a manner? Or does it damage him? Republicans on the ground in Iowa and elsewhere will decide that. And in the deciding they may be deciding more than one man’s future. They may be deciding if Republicans are becoming a different kind of party.
On a discussion forum, a poster commented that “Truly I think this is a critical point for the GOP and the decision facing the party is one of identity – do they want to be a religious party? Or do they want to be a limited government, personal liberty (with responsibliity) party? It looks like some are walking right to edge of ‘we want to be a religious party – but, for some reason, I don’t think they’ll take the plunge.”
When did the “religious party” within the GOP become the opponent of “limited government/personal-liberty-and-responsibility party”? I’m not sure where the divide began, but it is a divide in the party right now, and speaking as one who takes his religious convictions seriously, we need to clearly become the party of limited government/personal-liberty-and-responsibility. People of faith, who believe that faith should play a role in our approach to policy, shouldn’t give up on that conviction, but there needs to be a toning-down of the stridency, and the adoption of a greater degree of pragmatism.
The GOP seems to be going through an identity crisis with this election, and is being “reinvented.” Our viability as a national party depends on this reinventing being along the lines of a comprehesive and practical approach to governance. “Being for Jesus” isn’t enough. And this reinvention better take root before the end of the primary season.
December 15th, 2007 at 1:56 pm
If the GOP becomes the God party, I will be working to destroy it until there is a home for those of us who believe in freedom and individualism.
I think Republican voters will be wising up in the coming weeks and will realize if they nominate Huck or Mitt, they will be nominating the winner of a religious war, and such a candidate will be dead meat in November. They will look to one of the secular candidates instead. Probably Rudy, but maybe McCain or Fred.
December 15th, 2007 at 1:57 pm
At Intrade, Huck + Mitt = 40.6. Rudy + McCain + Fred = 51.0.
December 15th, 2007 at 1:59 pm
Huckabee either leads or is tied for the lead in Iowa among NON-EVANGELICALS.
The Huckabee-haters are pro-abortionists and Country Club Republicans.
The Country Club Republicans are getting nervous because Huckabee appeals to the lower-middle-class.
The limousine liberals should go back to the Democratic Party. Reagan did not need them and neither does Huckabee.
December 15th, 2007 at 2:05 pm
mnm, how old are you? Reagan ran on free entreprise, limited government, and American exceptionalism as this theme. SoCon issues were notably present and notably secondard to this theme.
You write as if his party is the one that should attack WEALTH.
I blame Karl Rove for inviting Evangelicals like you into this party without regard for your views on class warfare. YOU’RE the ones who belong to the Democratic party.
You will not help Huck within the GOP by attacking wealth. So go right ahead and do it some more.
December 15th, 2007 at 2:08 pm
MNM.
If thats your logic than I guess Huckabee lovers are pro-rape and pro-illegal gift giving. C’mon, don’t sound so silly.
December 15th, 2007 at 2:11 pm
Metro,
You seem to be implying that Mitt is running on religion. If it were up to Mitt he would never talk about his religion and he would not have given the Speech. But he is compelled to talk about them because voters and the media made Mormonsim an issue. The only one fighting a religious war is Huckabee. He is a puppet of the relgious right.
Mitt is running on his record and the issues. If he wins, it will not be because of the religious right, it will be in spite of them. The same holds true for Rudy and McCain. There is nothing wrong for a candidate to seek the religious vote by the way, Mitt more than any candidate is seeking to gain support from all facets of the GOP, that is a good and wise strategy.
In the same way that you feel a Huckabee win would compel you to destroy the party, so too do many people feel, including me, if Rudy wins. Rudy abandons almost as many GOPers as Huckabee does. Mitt, Fred, and (to a lesser extent) McCain are the only ones who can unite the party. YOU may not like it, but it is what it is.
December 15th, 2007 at 2:14 pm
Metro,
Your post shows your ignorance. I am not an evangelical.
I am part of the majority of the Republican Party that is NON-EVANGELICAL and PRO-LIFE. And we will help carry Huckabee to victory.
I am a pragmatic fiscal conservative, not an ivory-tower fiscal conservative like yourself. As for Reagan, he was a pragmatic fiscal conservative, like Huckabee, who had to balance budgets. And Reagan was criticized by ivory tower, ultra fiscal conservative types like yourself for being too fiscally liberal. Have you read David Stockman’s book The Triumph of Politics? Stockman was in the Reagan administration and criticized Reagan for being too fiscally liberal. But Reagan, like Huckabee, had to BALANCE BUDGETS and WORK WITH DEMOCRATS, and therefore could not be an ivory-tower-type ultra fiscal conservative like yourself.
You should do a little reading Metro instead of posting all the times. If you did some reading you would not be so ignorant of the facts.
December 15th, 2007 at 2:15 pm
I don’t think Huckabee’s rise is necessairily because of his religion, but because, for many social conservatives, he is simply the most credible on those issues (which they place at the top, and there is nothing wrong with that, because others do the same with other issues). Take a look at the negatives of the other candidates:
Rudy Giuliani – supports abortion
John McCain – called Christian Conservatives “agents of intolerance”
Fred Thompson – thinks abortion is ok at the state level
Mitt Romney – has not always been pro-life.
I think that we are not really in an identity crsis, but simply in a mess because the man who was expected to win the nomination and unite the party stupidly choose to run for re-election.
–
In a way, however, Noonan is right, the GOP, in order to survive, has to pick candidates who can appeal to the entire party. Since Reagan won, we have choosen leaders who were strong on social, fiscal, and military matters. That is the way the GOP has won in the past, and that is the way it has to win in the future. Casting out socons/fiscons/milcons (any one of them) would be a huge mistake, and would severely hurt the GOP.
December 15th, 2007 at 2:15 pm
MNM,
I am a Huck hater and I am neither an abortionist or a country cluber
December 15th, 2007 at 2:17 pm
MNM if you are a pragmatic fiscal conservative, why aren’t you supporting Mitt? He is far and away the best fiscal conservative in the field. Not only that be upholds the socon standards as well.
December 15th, 2007 at 2:18 pm
“He is a puppet of the relgious right.”
use that term sparingly when talking about Huckabee supporters. Keep in mind, there are millions of Chritian Conservatives (myself included) who do not support Huck.
December 15th, 2007 at 2:19 pm
Act,
Who are you referring too, Allen?
The only candidate that can unite the party that has a legitimate chance to win is Mitt.
December 15th, 2007 at 2:21 pm
Let’s be honest Act,
His rise is largely because of the evangelical movement. Preachers and pastors were the behind the scenes promoters of his rise. Of course, not every evangelical / religious righter supports Huck, that would be ridiculous, but his rise is primarily because of that segment of the party.
December 15th, 2007 at 2:21 pm
More anti-Huckabee stuff.
This is getting very one-sided.
December 15th, 2007 at 2:22 pm
I am an evangelical who has been involved in lay ministry for 15 years. I am ardently pro-life.
That said, I will abandon the GOP if we nominate a evangelical whose moral compass is so broken that he does not understand the inherent morality of democratic capitalism.
December 15th, 2007 at 2:24 pm
As I recall about 3 days ago, about 50% of the posts on R408 was pro-huck articles. It became all Huck all the time. R408 does a good job having bloggers from all the camps posting. Kavon can’t control who posts when. If a pro-Huck guy isn’t posting, then we aren’t getting pro-Huck articles. One of the reason I, and I would suppose most readers here, check this site multiple times/day is because it always has new stuff and articles about all the candidates, positive and negative.
December 15th, 2007 at 2:29 pm
speaking of Kavon, has anybody seen him on lately?
The latest polls make the rankings look stupid.
December 15th, 2007 at 2:29 pm
“’Being for Jesus’ isn’t enough.”
The first thing those of you who oppose churchgoers need to do is find a way to talk about religion and politics without being offensive. Many people are willing to die to defend their belief that Jesus is enough.
December 15th, 2007 at 2:30 pm
Huckabee is too identified with religious fundamentalism for campaign viability in the general. I see this as a major problem for the party, if he gets the nomination….and at this point it should be pretty obvious that either he or Mitt will get it. I like the fact that he’s religious, but the rest of his platform seems to be an extraneous add-on to what his campaign is all about. If he was primarily a neo-con, or a federalist, or a laissez-faire capitalist, it would be fine if he was also a Southern Baptist preacher. The problem is, as he has stated himself, he got into politics to take the nation back for Jesus, and by implication, that doesn’t leave much room for solving the country’s many problems. Mitt, by contrast, is one of the best problem solvers in the nation who has a solid agenda that he wants to accomplish….and just so happens to be a Mormon.
December 15th, 2007 at 2:43 pm
I would not rule out Rudy’s chances quite yet. If the race is really divided among many candidates, he may be the beneficiary. I find it unlikely, but there is still a possibilty. I really doubt Rudy will win Florida, and that could be the nail in his coffin, but what if Huck wins Iowa, Mitt wins NH and MI, (or if John wins MI), Fred wins SC, and Florida is a really close race between Mitt Huck and Rudy, and Rudy finshes second? It is wide open into Feb 5th. Rudy will win NY, NJ, and CN and is very competitive in MA and CA. So really it is possible that he could win the nomination.
Really, it all hinges on Iowa, if Mitt wins Iowa, I think he will sweep January and the Nomination will be his, although I SC could go to someone else. I actually think there is a likely chance of this. But I think if Huck wins Iowa, Mitt will win NH, MI, and NV and Huck will win SC. Then I think Mitt or Huck will win FL. If either of these two things happen, Rudy is either dead or on life support.
December 15th, 2007 at 2:43 pm
I’ll lay off huckabee, but he needs to take issues like foreign policy more seriously, instead of cute Brer Rabbit stories.
December 15th, 2007 at 2:52 pm
I really don’t see the problem of being identified as “The Religious Party”, as long as we are also identified as “The Strong Defense/Foreign Policy Party”, and the “Small Government Party” and the “Free Market Party”.
We can be all these things. We have managed to be all these three things since Reagan. No, we have not always been perfect at it, but this is what the GOP has been advertising ourselves as since the 1980′s. The only times we get into trouble is when we forget one or more of those factions and only play lip-service to it.
December 15th, 2007 at 2:53 pm
i wouldn’t rule out rudy yet either. i would say his chances have really plummted, but i tihnk ‘electability’ at the end of the day usually trumps. although i disagree seriously with his claim of being the most electable, people still peceive him as such for some reason. that may help him.
mccain is probably most electable??? but he still won’t get hte nod because conservative simply hate him. he can’ break his ceiling of support that he has.
and why lay of huckabee? he is the frontrunner for heavnes sake. he has had like one week of scrutiny. come on. lay it on thick! he must prove himslef. the others have or haven’t.
December 15th, 2007 at 3:17 pm
I opened Yahoo news today, and there in the top 4 political articles, we have this gem: (sarcasm)
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20071215/ap_on_el_pr/political_play_of_the_day
Is this a sign to anyone else that the news people waste our time and focus on stupid stuff that doesn’t help advance anything?
December 15th, 2007 at 3:18 pm
Huckabee has been getting hammered for well over three weeks solid, and they have been throwing everything at him. It will continue and it wil get nasty. Half of the stuff out there about him has been at least half
wrong or distorted and just accusations. I think that he will weather the storms but for folks to say that he is not getting vetted is just stupid.
December 15th, 2007 at 3:23 pm
#23 – John Galt, good assessment!
I, myself, don’t hate McCain, I just have a deep distrust of him. He is unpredictable.
Call it being a maverick, whatever. But he pushes legislation that hurts the GOP and hurts America and that’s not conservative. I don’t think I have to make a list here, most folks know what I’m talking about.
The last big thing was the Amnesty Bill. There was a huge resounding outcry against that bill that stopped it.
That is why I am confounded at the rise of Mike Huckabee and that’s why I’m convinced that most Huckabee supporters are unaware of his background.
And, John, that’s why you’re completely, 150% right about your last statement:
and why lay of huckabee? he is the frontrunner for heavnes sake. he has had like one week of scrutiny. come on. lay it on thick! he must prove himslef. the others have or haven’t.
Romney, Rudy and all the others have been under the microscope for months and have withstood the test of scrutiny.
Let’s see how Huckabee fares when he is fully vetted. And thank goodness there is still time for the process to take place.
I’m already reading comments in the blogosphere by his supporters saying things like:
“Wow, I didn’t know about the 1,000 plus commutations, or the Dumond case, or how he governed as far as illegal immigration (Mexican consulate, in-state tuition for illegals, etc.), or how he raised taxes, or took gifts worth more than his salary (his questionable ethics).”
Most of Huckabee’s supporters are going off his talking points and the MSM pushing him. They’re just hoping that if they scratch the surface of Huck’s hide, he will be the real thing they hope he is. He will not be, and they with either (1) continue to willingly stupidize themselves, believing he is God’s chosen one, or (2) be disappointed and move on.
There once was a governor named Huck,
And the Liberal Dems couldn’t believe their luck!
They pushed for the nod
From the GOP bod(y)
So they’d win and Republicans would be stuck — with a loser!
December 15th, 2007 at 3:30 pm
mnm: If you are a pragmatic fiscal conservative, how in the world can you support a propenent of the fair tax, one that requires overhauling the entire tax structure of the United States, completely removing the IRS and implementing 50 tax collection agencies for each state, and amending the Constitution?
I think head-in-the-clouds fiscal conservative may be a more appropriate label. You should look into it.
December 15th, 2007 at 3:38 pm
Because America is a democracy, and not a theocracy, the GOP should be the limited govt/personal liberty-with-responsibility party. If the GOP becomes the religious party, or even the “compassionate conservative” (read: big government) party they lose younger voters like myself. It’s got to the point where if Huckabee (or even Romney) is the GOP nominee I will be voting 3rd party. Yet many others will say that if Rudy is the nominee they vote 3rd party. The bad news is this hurts both of our causes and hands the election to Hillary/Obama.
All I have to say is we better reconcile our differences and come to a consensus. If not, we’re destined to be the minority party (or parties) for the next 20 years.
December 15th, 2007 at 3:57 pm
Anti-Huck rhetoric is getting to be annoying on this site, that and the Anti-Faith rhetoric. Is this site going to get a Huckabee guy or not?
December 15th, 2007 at 4:18 pm
Jack get over it. We don’t like Huck. Every other candidate has gone through it. There are thousands of other blogs if you can’t handle it.
December 15th, 2007 at 4:23 pm
Jack, now you know how Mormons feel. Not so fun is it?
December 15th, 2007 at 4:52 pm
The Anti-Huck rhetoric is going to get any better unless Huck wins
the nomination and has a viable Nationally Known Fiscal Cons. to be
the running-mate. The Anti-Huck Rhetoric is first fostered by the
atheists or non-christian fiscal conservatives that are more
libertarian than conservative. You will even hear how some will
support a liberal elitest Democrat Nominee over Huck. Something
a conservative republican true to their principles in supporting
the party of principles would never do.
December 15th, 2007 at 5:03 pm
Here’s a comment I read over at a conservative website where they were discussing the disparity of Huckabee saying he has a theology degree and the truth that he dropped out of seminary after one year:
This is sad. I am a Christian and supported Huck for about 3 weeks or so. I only even seriously considered him after giving up on Fred. I first heard he was a Baptist preacher and was pro life but had little chance of winning. I didn’t know a lot about him, admittedly. Once I started reading, at first I just thought he was being smeared. Then,, realized this guy is horrible! I think the “Baptist Minister underdog†thing swayed me and a lot of others. That and with a top 3 that are just plain horrible! This is shaping up to be a sad sad election! So much at stake and we have so little to offer. There is a certain dynamic at play here. You have a large group of conservatives unhappy with all the top choices and searching and hoping for something better. Then,, out from underneath comes this “Baptist preacher pro life underdog!†It plays to the hope inside of conservatives. You don’t think too much at first. It’s almost like the cavalry coming to the rescue! The thought just doesn’t even enter the mind that the cavalry is actually coming to rescue the enemy!
95 posted on 12/15/2007 8:10:17 AM PST by freemike
December 15th, 2007 at 5:29 pm
#6 Swint
Let me adjust one thing you said slightly…The only one fighting a religious war is Huckabee. He is a puppet of the relgious right.”
It’s the opposite: The religious right is Huckabee’s puppet. He knows just how to play them.
December 15th, 2007 at 6:20 pm
It’s not being religious Peggy Noonan. It’s about being pro life.
We don’t want to vote for a man who doesn’t even consider abortion to be murder (hint: Mitt Romney).
We don’t want to vote for someone who was a pro-abortion lobbyist and justified it by saying “that was private life” (hint: Fred).
We don’t want somebody who has been very cozy with NARAL (hint: Rudy).
We want Huckabee /McCain.
December 15th, 2007 at 6:27 pm
Ask Huckabee if he thinks its murder in a public forum….he will weasel his way around the answer like he always does. Abortion, in my mind is very, very bad, is the taking of human life, but people that hate it may argue after the actual definition of murder applies to it. My bet is Huckabee wouldn’t call it murder if asked on national tv.
December 15th, 2007 at 6:45 pm
Actually Huck publicly compared abortion to a holocaust at the Values Voter Summit.
December 15th, 2007 at 6:53 pm
Nice talking with everyone, but I have ta jet.
Be back next week.
December 15th, 2007 at 6:53 pm
“Actually Huck publicly compared abortion to a holocaust at the Values Voter Summit.”
fifty million abortions, less than 5% for rape, incest, or health reasons…
I’m not fan of Nazi references, but the case can deffinately be made.
December 15th, 2007 at 6:55 pm
There is a fundamental and irrevocable chasm between believers in liberty and those who wish to inject religion into governance.
You can’t have it both ways for long. The GOP has built its majority on this unstable alliance, and now it is coming apart.
If the theos succeed in taking over the party completely, then they will end up putting the old-line republicans into the Democratic party (where the Bob Rubin wing would welcome them warmly), and the Dems will be a very long term majority party.
If the theos fail to take over the party, it seems they will be royally pissed and might bolt. But I really dont know where they might go.
Maybe they will come to peace with the notion that Americans really do want their religion to be a private matter, and the government really is intended, after all, to defend the country, maintain order, advance the general welfare, and not much else.