Huckenfreude: the George F. Will edition

While you're dismissive of Huckabee's opponents, it seems to me that a genuine Federalist position is occupied by only ONE of them--Fred Thompson.

All the rest are (to a greater/lesser degree) Statists, like Huckabee. And the (D) side is filled with not only Statists, but virtual State-worshippers.

For me, what is missing from the entire discussion is the basic flaw in the primary elections process for federal office.

Consider, if you will, what would happen if the states acquired the same control over the date of the general election that they currently have over the primaries. In the end, the pejorative charge of "statism" belongs squarely on the political parties.

Abolish state control of federal primaries. Have the debate on what it should be, and set one date for a primary election day.

I share Rod's view of the anti-Huck phenomenon. Substantively, the more I learn about Huckabee, the less impressive he is.

But folks like Kathy Lopez are playing straight into his hands by yammering that his "Merry Christmas" ad is "offensive." If George Will and the NRO-niks don't shut up soon, they're going to propel Mike Huckabee to a huge victory in Iowa and perhaps even the GOP nomination.

I agree with Daniel about there being a misunderstanding of what the complaint is about, and especially agree with the reminder that liberals "are concerned about the 20% of people who face discrimination in this country because they aren't Christian", particularly on their own taxpayer dimes (and dollars).

Michael Graham gets it wrong too when he says, "every person of faith put under the glare of suspicion for having an Advent calendar in their cubicle - they saw in Mike Huckabee an ally under siege".

First, there is no such "glare of suspicion" on a person who does that (unless they are breaking an employer's workplace rules of conduct).

Secondly, it is really only 'every person of HUCKABEE'S faith' (or one that is a close parallel - I certainly don't mean to imply that only Baptists would find him voteworthy - and don't ever let's lose sight of the fact that this ad was meant to be a vote getter) that finds an ally in Huckabee (as concerns faith issues). I doubt that Jews, who are also "people of faith", would find him to be an "ally".

He further compounds the error when he says: "Liberals, both in politics and the media, insist that they are not against the public practice of religion. They resent the implication that opposing, say, a creche at City Hall, means they oppose faith in general."

I am a liberal and a person of faith, so certainly I resent the implication. I was reared in the knowledge that I had a "personal relationship" with my Creator. Why Graham wants what is personal to become "public" escapes me. Why he wants taxpayer dollars used to support it becoming "public practice" also escapes me.

Is Graham suggesting that ALL religions ought to become "public practice" at taxpayers expense? I'm sure the Baptists wouldn't like their tax money spent putting up public displays of the Q'uran, or a Torah or a Mennorah or a statue of Buddha. This is why some of those in the excluded groups get upset when they see public, taxpayer-paid symbols of only one faith. Some of us liberals are in the "included" group (i.e. Christians) and can still see the injustice of promoting one to the exlusion of the others, especialy in a land that 'promises' freedom of religion.

Of course we "resent the impication that opposing, say, a creche at City Hall, means they oppose faith in general." It isn't true. Why wouldn't we resent a lie being promulgated about what we believe? What we liberals object to is ONE religion becoming "public practice", and at all taxpayers' expense, to the exclusion of many, many others.

Kathryn Jean Lopez's linked column on The National Review site perpetuates the misunderstanding:

"[Huckabee's ad] does something different. Something inviting. (Except to the atheists and agnostics!!)"

I doubt it's very "inviting" to Jewish Americans, or Hindu Americans, or Sikh Americans, or Buddhist Americans, or Muslim Americans. These are hardly "atheists and agnostics".

This season isn't ONLY the holiday for Christians, what with Channukah, Eid, Ramadan, Solstice and other faith celebrations all happening within a month of one another. And "Happy Holidyas" or "Season's Greetings" encompasses ALL who would celebrate. Huck's vision is an exclusionary one rather than inclusive, and that seems to me to be troubling in one who would be President of ALL Americans.

Thanks for noting this, Rod. I read Will's column today and I about spewed my Reuben out my nose I was so p*ssed. Blood libel??? C'mon.

"And no Christian should be fired from his or her job for saying "Merry Christmas," either, even if he/she happens to say it to a non-Christian customer.Or does the right of the non-Christian to avoid the celebration of Christmas trump the right of the Christian to celebrate it?"

Always the victim.

And no, I don't think anyone should be fired for saying "Merry Christmas" (not that anyone has).

If an employer has a policy, I think an employee is going to be hard-pressed to show that they HAVE to say "Merry Christmas" as part of their religious belief and therefore saying "Happy Holidays" is somehow discrimination. OTOH, forcing Jewish or Muslim employees to chirp "Merry Christmas" because it is the majority's religion does have the potential to be discriminatory and therefore an accommodation may be in order.

The use of "Happy Holidays" as a non-sectarian alternative to "Merry Christmas" goes back for many decades. Irving Berlin wrote a song by that title in the early 40s. It's not some new conspiracy dreamed up by secular humanists to destroy Christmas.

IF certain retail establishments are now trying to discourage Christmas greetings, that's unfortunate--but undoubtedly it's a decision motivated more from fear of giving offense to potential customers than from any anti-religious sentiments. It seems to me that it is hyper-sensitive Christians, not secularists, who are responsible for elevating a disagreement over holiday greetings into a flashpoint in the culture wars. And I say this as a Christian.

If it's wrong to use "Happy Holidays" as a means of verbally erasing Christ from Christmas, it's equally against the spirit of the season to wield "Merry Christmas" in a spirit of militant defiance. Christmas belongs to everyone.

I just remembered that I need to call my muslim friends and wish them a happy Eid! I cannot even fathom being upset, insulted or otherwise put-out if I was greeted with "Happy Eid" as I moved about today. And if one of my muslim friends were to actually give me some token of celebration for the day, well, I'd be over the moon.

And the Chicago Tribune recently ran several essays by Jewish folks talking about how they celebrate Christmas. As a Christian for whom the holiday has religious meeaning, it was a bit unsettling to read their accounts of celebrating the holiday completely devoid of any deeper meaning, but hey - it's a free country! They saw some fun and decided to join in.

There is something fundamentally wrong with anyone who feels anything other than pleasure (or at worst indifference) at holiday well-wishing regardless of the religion. The whole idea that there are people who actually feel bad if they are wished Merry Christmas is a sad commentary on the state of mankind. Let's help these people by getting them the mental health treatment they so obviously need rather than trying to make people worry about hurting these mentally fragile folk's feelings.

I agree it's telling, because it's a clarifying moment about what constitutes conservativism in this country.

Huck's got statist instincts galore, but he thinks he gets to run as a conservative because he's anti-abortion and talks up family values. Notwithstanding fusionism's demise, there's still a ton of Goldwater/Reagan, libertarian/limited-government-except-for-big-ol' hawkish-defense sentiment within the Republican party. People in that camp listen to Huckabee's rhetoric (as contrasted, in some cases, with his positions) and don't consider him a conservative. (He sounds a whole lot like Jimmy Carter.) That should come as no surprise; it would be much more surprising if they thought he was a conservative.

Simon, I was writing my last comment before I read yours. Wouldn't have repeated some of your able points if I'd read yours first.

Well, Andy, last I checked Christmas was a religious holiday, so it technically "belongs" to people who celebrate it as such.

Daniel, last year in December an elderly store clerk wished me a Merry Christmas, and when I returned the greeting she smiled quaveringly and told me this was the first time in years she had been "allowed" by the management to say "Merry Christmas" instead of "Happy Holidays." She was thrilled at the "privilege."

Here's the thing. The retail establishments in this country make a huge portion of their profits at Christmas. Goods appear on shelves that can't be bought at any other time (try finding a child's bathrobe in May, for instance.) The stores are *counting* on the custom people have of exchanging gifts on a particular religious holiday; but for years they wouldn't name that holiday at all. For me the worst offender was a company I won't name here that had several pages of what they called "Hanukkah Gifts and Decorations" and "Suitable for Kwanzaa" merchandise--but everything else in their "Holiday" catalog, red and green stockings, lights, ornaments and so forth, was given the generic name "Holiday." In other words, they were willing to mention Hanukkah, and even Kwanzaa, but not Christmas! The word "Christmas" didn't appear even once in their "Holiday" catalog.

Now, I respect their right as a company to do that, and reserve my right as someone who celebrates Christmas to throw their catalog in the trash and avoid shopping with them not only at Christmas but all year long. But you have to know that Huckabee is aware of the frustration some Christians have with the situation, that while we're the majority religion in this country we continually have to muzzle our expressions of faith in public on the off chance we'll "offend" somebody who practices a different religion.

I've never known a Jewish person who took offense at the phrase "Merry Christmas," (nor would I mind a hearty "Happy Hanukkah!" in reply from any of them). If I ran into Franklin at a crowded store and wished him a Merry Christmas, I don't think he'd mind either, from what he has said here. But the official "p.c." position is that we can't risk offending anyone by admitting publicly that we are Christians who celebrate Christmas, and I think that Huckabee has struck a nerve with people who find that discouraging.

Erin,

I understand your frustration and you are entitled to it. But, really, I think this so-called War on Christmas is getting a wee bit excessive—from tales of quaking retail employees to shuddering at the words “Happy Holidays.”

Yes, Christmas is a religious holiday. Yes, it “technically belongs” to Christians. And since Christians make up something like 80 percent of the nation, I am sure if the faithful were so mortally offended by “Happy Holidays” they would boycott commercial Christmas by the millions until retailers buckled under the pressure. But they don’t. They are out there buying, buying, buying with the rest of us heathens, and show no sign of letting up, regardless of the crimes committed by the jack-booted thugs in Macy’s HR Department. So you can go on citing all the Christmas offenses you happen upon, but if the majority of Christians (e.g., the majority of this nation) can’t be bothered to protest in any meaningful way, it says more about Christians than retailers.

Why aren’t national Christian leaders standing up to call for a boycott, or at least put some kind of pressure on retailers? Oh, yeah. It might hurt them politically and/or financially. So the War on Christmas begins to sound a little more like red meat to feed to the masses, than a true threat (hell, a true concern) that must be met with concerted action. Maybe, just maybe, Crate & Barrel isn’t the true enemy of Christmas. Maybe it is the Christians.

(Funny story, my Jewish friends hate Happy Hanukkah, and think it’s an offensive form of Christian PC. They think it’s a Christian’s way of trying to elevate a minor Jewish holiday to the excessive extremes of Christmas, so as not to “offend” anyone, even though many Christians seem blissfully ignorant of the holiday. One year, one of my friends, tired of well-intentioned condescension, asked a greeter if she knew just the basics of Hanukkah. He was met with a blank stare.)

The reason that there aren't massive boycots over it is that it's an annoyance, not something you turn your life upside down over. However, it's a legitimate annoyance caused by a completely illegitimate and idiotic way of thinking.

We boycot over big things like aparthide in South Africa. Boycotting in such a major way over something which is really an insulting annoyance would be stupidity without bounds. However, complaining loudly is a perfectly reasonable respeonce to insulting annoyances.

Why on earth should be people have to boycot things in order to call for them to change? Since when did willingness to boycot become a measure of what is true or not? It shouldn't take a boycot to get people to remove their brains from their nether-regions and start using them, for heaven's sake!

My take on the situation, your mileage etc., grains of salt, blah, blah...

For nigh on 2 centuries Christians in North America were the default rulers of all things cultural, and quite naturally infused the culture with things Christian. As the young republic matured, the de facto Christian control of the culture changed (faded, declined) and the fact that it tended to exclude, suppress or otherwise give non-Christians valid reasons to be miffed, peeved, annoyed and in a short list of cases downright angry fertilized the soil of discourse and lexicon to give birth to...

dnnh, dnnh, dnnnnnnnnnnh... political correctness. [Please note absence of upper case initial letters and scare quotes.]

The culture war ensued, and the forces that be aim for the extremes in the hope that they'll get (for them) reasonably close.

In the meantime, every moderate voice (raising my hand) along the way has been ignored, beaten, ridiculed and in all ways nullified, because in a war you just have to have conflict, battles, casualties and ad nauseum. After all, its a turf war, a contest to determine the (new/once and future) king of the cultural hill. You can't call it a war without, well, all of that...

Erin, like it or not, Christianity has a PR/image problem. It has had many decades to build up. Valid or not, non-Christians can see such a large target and point to it as worthy of attack. That is the primary aspect of political correctness as the bane of our society.

Daniel, the other side has no interest in rational discourse around these issues, because it's only interest is in punishing Christianity for all actual and perceived injuries. Moderation is right out, revenge is on the front line. Like it or not, Erin (and Christians in general) have a valid complaint about all of that.

The formula to heal this rift is so damn simple, I ache to think about it: Christians, realize how so very large our cultural patio is, and bite your tongues and take a half-step to the side. The rest of us, accept this sharing of space with some semblance of grace, and start the long process of learning how to walk together in baby steps, in tandem, in synch, and more or less in the same direction.

Only a fool rejects compromise.

With reiterated respect for Erin's stated position:

Assimilation in Christian America* requires all of the following: language, citizenship, becoming a Christian if not one already. In that America, everyone gets "Merry Christmas", or they just aren't assimilated. This is a Christian culture, can't you read...?

* My sarcasm aside, the only good thing about the concept of political correctness is that it does prompt people to think before acting or speaking. For example, Larry, one would not wish a Hindu "Happy Holidays" in December, since there is no major Hindu festival during that time -- the only one that even comes close is Diwali, and that's September/October. On the other hand, I would be curious to know if there's a traditional greeting one gives to others during the festival of Lakshmi. Not that most of them would even know what the heck is going on, but I'd also be curious to know if a Christian would be offended by receiving a Diwali greeting from a Hindu cashier or salesperson. Oh, and no, I don't really know if this is a valid analogy.

Well, Andy, last I checked Christmas was a religious holiday, so it technically "belongs" to people who celebrate it as such.

According to the Supreme Court (upholding Ganulin v. United States), Christmas has a valid secular purpose (commerce), and is celebrated by non-Christians as well as Christians (Christmas trees and gift-giving and family time with no thought to the religious significance), and can therefore be a federal holiday without violating the non-establishment clause. So Christians who celebrate it as a holy day need to just carry on and celebrate it with due reverence and ignore the rest of us.

I've never met anyone who objected to being told "Merry Christmas!" Has someone actually ever been fired for saying it? Can you cite a case? Not that I don't believe people could be that stupid, but it does kind of sound apocryphal.

Mrs. Pringle

True dat x 2. But liberals weren't the only ones attacking Huck for that ad.?

'Weren't the only ones'? Were they attacking Huckabee at all for the ad? As many people may be aware, I am somewhat on the left, and I only read this and few other conservative blogs...most of what I read is on the left. None of the major players that I read have attacked the ad. Of course, I'm not some sort of blog deity, for all I know I'm just missing all it.

But the three people talking about this, the only places I've read anything about this, are here, John Cole, and Sullivan, all of which are on the right (to some, rather disgruntled, extent) and all of which are simply commenting at the fact the right is attacking Huckabee, as it's confirming exactly what they think about the relationship of the GOP toward Christianity...the GOP is just using it to get elected.

No one on the left seems to be talking about it at all, except to link to those guys. kos, one of the few who has, was rather sarcastic about the attacks ago: http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2007/12/19/25747/037

If you don't mean bloggers, OTOH, the only attacks I've heard about were from Peggy Noonan, Ron Paul, and Bill Donahue, none of which are exactly card-carrying members of the left.

ScurvyOaks
"I'm not sure why we are somehow obliged to vote for a liberal just because he really, really, really believes in Jesus."

Sorta odd that the only person who's apparently letting his Christian faith guide his political beliefs has decided that, inexplicably, social services aren't all bad, and that the Bible doesn't say anything about lowering taxes or invading countries.

Wait, not 'odd'...'expected', that's the word I meant.

(Reposted here instead of the wrong place it ended up somehow.)

Actually, Larry, what I'm saying is what I said in another thread, which I will reiterate here for you intended for all and sundry: "It's the culture, stupid."

I don't mean to be picking on you. No one in a right mind expects a person to know another person's religion on sight. Not all Indians are Hindu, not all Americans are Christian, not all Goths are pagan, the "nots" go on and on. It's like the idiot owner of Geno's Steaks here in Philly, with his "speak English" sign. Taking insult (or bemoaning the inconvenience, even) from being confronted with something not American is, in a word, ridiculous. The strident voices on both sides of this question should go out and get a life, or something.

I'm off to celebrate the solstice tonight. If you (general) are at all interested, the details are at http://pagan-arts.org/.