Writing on the First Things blog, Ryan Anderson faults Mike Huckabee for failing to make a case for socially conservative values in language that makes sense outside of church circles. Excerpt:
So one lesson learned from the Giuliani and Huckabee campaigns was the continued political relevance of social conservatives.Yet that shouldn't be the only lesson we take away, for [NYT columnist Frank] Rich was right about one thing: The leaders of the social conservative movement do not speak for mainstream America. And they never will, so long as they follow the Huckabee model.
But they could. The American mainstream is, especially when compared to other industrialized nations, remarkably conservative on social issues. Lifestyle liberalism has always been a liability for the left in America, as witnessed by the fact that the more socially conservative candidate has won five of the past seven presidential elections. Social conservatives can speak for the mainstream but only if they move beyond the Huckabee approach.
And:
To be successful, hearts and minds need to be changed. Minds are changed by rational arguments.
I generally endorse Anderson's point as a matter of strategy, though with some reservation. (And he shouldn't cite Lisa Schiffren as an example of a conservative sympathetic to Huck's goals but unpersuaded by his campaigning; she distinguished herself, if that is the word, by extreme condescension to Huck's Arkansas roots). I agree with Anderson that in a pluralistic, increasingly secular country like ours, a politician has to put forth arguments beyond, "...for the Bible tells me so." As Anderson rightly notes, the Bible as a source of moral authority is still relevant in our culture, but much less so. That's a sad fact for Christians, but a fact it is, and Christian politicians who hope to lead have to accomodate themselves to this reality.
But I sense that Anderson overestimates the power of reason to influence hearts and minds in our postmodern era. Rationality can only take you so far, and besides, it seems to me most people, whatever they say, function at the level of "the heart wants what it wants," to quote a contemporary philosopher, or, as Pascal put it, "The heart has its reasons, of which reason knows nothing." We live in a time in which primacy is placed on subjective emotion. Emotivism, not rationality, is the primary philosophical current of our time. So while it's true that any successful politician has to find a way to make his arguments in a non-sectarian, relatively secular way, I don't have the faith that Anderson in the power of rationality to change the public's mind.
Put another way, I don't think minds are much changed these days by rational arguments. Not enough minds, anyway, to make a difference.
Add to Del.icio.us
Add to Technorati
Add to Digg
Add to Newsvine
Add to Facebook
Add to StumbleUpon
Subscribe
I disagree with this article's critique on Governor Huckabee's campaign and I believe he made GREAT sense to those outside the church group. As a member of Hucksarmy, I can tell you his support base was just as diverse as the population itself. He talked of the idea that this is a country that respects life, not just in the womb but all the way thru and including those in the nursing homes. He had MANY common sense ideas that appeal to the mainstream American crowd, such as the Fair Tax, his health care and education reform ideas. I believe it is the MEDIA that has tried to label Governor Huckabee's campaign as one that appealed only to a secular group. This man did more with less than most ANY candidate could have hoped for. Yet, instead of giving him credit for getting more delegates on less money than ANY candidate, getting to 2nd place in the Republican race, with little money, a mini-organizaton, and few big name endorsements, the media wants to try to downplay what he accomplished. His success has NOT been lost on the American people as evidenced in the Rasmussen polls just taken 7/25-27/08 showing Huck helps McCain's ticket a full 8pts. while Romney the media pick actually HURTS McCain's ticket 6 pts. Reagan was another great communicator who was hated by the press but loved by the people and he came back 4 yrs. later to win in a landslide! Watch history repeat itself!!
Huck is a gifted speaker and a pretty able politician in many ways. He needs to learn to organize and he needs to learn to study and be prepared on the big issues. He did not expand much out of the evangelical vote when the votes still counted.
If Huck could learn to speak to all Christians, not just Evangelicals, he could probably win. It was pretty clear that he was often speaking just to evangelicals. That may guarantee him 30% of the Republican primary vote, but not a general election. All of this assumes that the people who who have the most sway in the Republican party (Rush, Hannity, Savage, etc.) can get over the idea that a Republican governor may have to make compromises and raise taxes when in office. It just is not the end of the world. Constant deficit spending is bad also.
Steve
I definitely agree with the idea that Huckabee needs to change his rhetoric somewhat. Having said that, he did marshall a pretty amazing campaign, given where he started from. I did find him sloppy and clueless in a few areas, but I think this was MOSTLY disappointing to me simply because I was so deeply and passionately supportive of him, and it is always hard to see imperfections in a candidate, of which you are a "true believer" in- other politicians that I am not as supportive of or passionate about, I tend to be more forgiving of.
However, the people that I really had a difficult time with was a lot of his supporters. If you think Obamas' campaign is cult-like, anyone who visited Huckabee's website, knows that the comments were down right scary and freakish at times. As a supporter of his, and one who is Mormon (one of very few), and not Evangelical, I found it outright disgusting, how frequently, supporters, made comments to the effect that it was God's will that Huckabee be elected, that he was his messenger, etc., etc., etc. It wasn't just the comments in and of themselves, but their intensity, frequency and consistency; the comboxes were saturated and drowning in it. All I kept thinking, as a fellow religious believer, was "You know if these people really want Huckabee to catch on, they will drop this rhetoric, because I can't see how anyone who is interested in Huckabee, but maybe unfamiliar with him, or just not as passionate about him, and maybe is a little more cool-headed, about this stuff, can't be driven away from his website, and likely him, by these comments." I know it sure was hard for me to swallow. Though I claim to try to follow God as best I can, I find it very presumptuous, for people to be claiming that such and such politcal campaigns, events, etc. are the will of God.
And having mentioned that I am a Mormon, before anyone else mentions it, yes I apply the same standard to any comments that were made about Mitt Romney. I found my fellow Mormons willingness to support him, indiscriminately, off-putting. I supported Huckabee for two reasons, in this order: 1) He seemed to me to be of higher moral character than Mitt Romney or other candidates. And given that we have no idea, what is going to occur during a four-year term, to me this trumps, in a lot of ways, the importance of many stated policy positions.
2) I liked his positions much better (with the dramatic exception of the fair tax.)
At this point I think, I am bordering on rambing.
-Brandon Chase Bell
2)
Brandon, I don't believe you are a Mormon. No Mormon would overlook the blatant anti-Mormon play Huckabee made, in which he tried to divide the party and alienate the most conservative voting block in the GOP. Huckabee's behind every one of the "no Mitt for VP" efforts.
Wake up and look at what is happening to not only your party, but your country. Evangelical leaders better wake up, too, because Huckabee is leading them right over a cliff into the land of permanent irrelevance.
Um, why exactly would I claim to be a Mormon, if I really wasn't?
I attend the Logan, Utah 4th ward, in the chapel on the corner of 1st East and 3rd North, in Logan. We meet at 12:30
I obviously interpret events, a little differently than you, in regrads to Huckabee's campaign. But now I can't even be a Mormon, because I supported Huckabee? I wish someone would have let me know that before I decided to support and donate to his campaign. And I don't need you to tell me that it was a very unpopular move among Mormons, living as I do here in Utah, where Huckabee, recieved a whole 2% of the vote in the Republican Primary.
Please write my Bishop, and tell him, to release me from my calling in the Sunday School, as I just found out I am actually not a member of the church I thought I belonged to all these years. I guess somehow I was able to serve a two-year mission, in Washington, D.C. for a church that I don't really belong to, as well. Hmmm...
I don't ascribe the motives, that you obviously do to Huckabee, but I am just trying to figure out what reason I would have to lie? What exactly would my motive be?
Post a Comment
By submitting these comments, I agree to the beliefnet.com terms of service, rules of conduct and privacy policy (the "agreements"). I understand and agree that any content I post is licensed to beliefnet.com and may be used by beliefnet.com in accordance with the agreements.