It's probably a blessing that Mike didn't make the nomination; now he won't be tempted, as any of would be, to pander to the kind of questionable electoral sentiments that advisors tell you you have to to win.

Mike is now free to be the prophetic conscience of the Republican Party and hopefully other who feel the same way will be standing with him in doing so.

We need principled Christians who are conservative to speak to the temptations of conservatism, to expose its dark tendencies.

Posted by: N.M. Rod | March 6, 2008 11:34 AM

Huckabee believes that lifelong, sexually exclusive gay relationships are an abomination, a position which is not Scriptural or Christian. He doesn't, however, condemn divorce, which Jesus clearly condemns. He also supports taking innocent lives in pre-emptive wars, which goes against both Christian pacisfist and just war traditions. He also supports an economic system based on the charging of interest, which is condemned by the Prophets.

Barack Obama comes from a Christian tradition which blesses gay relationships, works for peace, and tries to change economic systems which oppress the poor. When Obama prays to Jesus every night, he is asking for the strength to bring Jesus' compassion into the public sphere. Hillary comes from a Wesleyan tradition which has ceaselessly followed Wesley in his desire to reform society according to the Sermon on the Mount. Perhaps Huckabee's next step is to start reading the red letters in the Bible he carries around with him.

Posted by: Ashpenaz | March 6, 2008 11:44 AM

"N.T. Wright, a conservative, says that the greatest moral issue today is not abortion but the economic inequality between the U.S. and Europe and the developing world."

I tend to agree with Wright. But it leads me to wonder: can you imagine an American evangelical leader saying such a thing? (Wright is English, and an Anglican bishop.) The argument here is not that Europeans are smarter than are Americans (they are not) but that living in a smaller country with other nations close by gives one a global outlook that few of us Americans share.

The other thought: it's much easier to tackle abortion than global inequities in wealth. Abortion has symbols that fire up the constituency--photos of fetuses, etc. How do you capture global poverty in a single, spectacular image?

Posted by: carl copas | March 6, 2008 12:10 PM

Maybe you should just watch "Angels in America" again,
Mike Nichols' plea for a special homosexual dispensation.

It's replete with plenty of gay sex, sex with angels and God is missing in action. The gay prophet tells the angels to "sue the bastard" should God ever return.

It's amazingly moving, and it ends with a plea that the time for "equal citizenship" for homosexuals has come.

However, I found it unconvincing, if interesting.

Posted by: N.M. Rod | March 6, 2008 12:24 PM

I have to chime in on this one.
First off, Ashpenaz has no basis for any of his claims. The act of homosexuality is clearly stated as an abomination and anything less is simply trying to be tactful. That doesn't mean we tear into the homosexual, but to claim sin as literally defined in the Scripture as not sin is simply wrong.
Regarding Wallis' comments, there is nothing wrong with being a fiscal conservative. We do not promote poor, but we also do not promote governmental solutions to the problem. Liberals like Wallis have had their chance to resolve poverty and have failed to do so. Christians should reach out as a body and as individuals to comfort and aid the poor, but don't come down on the fiscally conservative and free market supporters that simply endorse a more personal, privatized ministry to the "have-nots".

Posted by: Steve S | March 6, 2008 12:33 PM

"Liberals like Wallis have had their chance to resolve poverty and have failed to do so."

Resolve poverty?

PX

Posted by: neuro_nurse | March 6, 2008 1:04 PM

As both a long-time Sojourner subscriber and a practicing Latter-Day Saint, I cant resist the need to dampen the accolades for Governor Huckabee by noting that he based his initial religous fortunes on pandering to the bigotry of the far right towards Mormonism. Huckabee rode this opportunistic tsunami to victory in Iowa, which set in motion his rise and Romney's fall.

It is in unplesant thing to be on the receiving end of religious bigotry, and Mormons are still stunned by the level of hostility directed towards them by their Evangelical brothers and sisters. This rather prominent beam in Huckabee's eye makes me rather skeptical about the purity of his vision.

Posted by: DD | March 6, 2008 2:18 PM

Yes, during that one debate, Huckabee admirably didn't bow to the we-hate-illegal-immigrants (or just the we-hate-immigrants) stance that seems to be inordinately popular amongst many Christian conservatives. I remember that you commended that in an earlier article. But as far as I know, that was the end of it for Huckabee's stand on the issue. Soon after he came under attack for his rulings in Arkansas, his website was full of typical language on the issue. For instance:

"I will take our country back for those who belong here. No open borders, no amnesty, no sanctuary, no false Social Security numbers, no driver's licenses for illegals."

As a Native American, I find this ludicrous and even offensive. "For those who belong here"? Who really does belong here? People who look like Huckabee and his supporters? In other words, the descendants of the most powerful historically illegal immigrants with the right color of skin? The anti-Mexican fervor amongst this particular Christian voting base is beyond me. They say there should be no tolerance for immigrants who don't immediately assimilate. Yet when white people came to this land they had no intention of abiding by the laws of the people whose home it was. There was no intention of learning our language or customs or even respecting our history or way of life. Just read Lewis and Clark's statement that was 'informing' Indians that the United States was now their ruler. Yet the white conservative Christian voting base acts as though God created them on this soil. At best, this is hypocritical. This attitude is what led to the demonization of Chinese immigrants ("yellow peril") in the 1800s, the racism toward Japanese Americans during WWII. It most certainly cannot coexist with truly Biblical standards.

Posted by: EG | March 6, 2008 2:33 PM

Rick - how can you be sure Reagan was 'spreading propoganda' about the failure of the welfare state? Maybe you were getting bad information from your sources and Reagan was resolving the issue. Our country was not created to be a state of wealth redistribution. It is a state where we all have the power and freedom to stand up and be accountable for our own 'success' (whatever that means). The numbers indicate that the most impoverished in our nation rarely stay that way for long. The poor have the freedom to step up and improve their circumstance without the meddling of the government. Anybody with an ounce of pride ought to recognize that this is what its all about.
Am I saying they don't need help? No, I'm not, but its not the taxpayers job to pay for their well-being. We have a "free" education system and countless ways to improve oneself and learn life skills. Simple handouts are rarely the answer and plain unAmerican and unChristian as well. btw- where in the Bible does it say give to the poor? Not saying its a bad idea, but where does this extremist call for redistribution of wealth come from in the Bible?

Posted by: Steve S | March 6, 2008 2:48 PM

I know this might have fallen through the cracks, but as a Christian who was appalled at the sort of rhetoric we heard in the immigration debate, I ultimately found one voice of reason, and that voice was actually John McCain. I won't support him in the general election (maybe if this was 2000 and he wasn't waffling so much on issues such as the deficit, and the fact that he hasn't ruled out plunging us further into this hole of war in the Middle East, but his immigration plan was the only solidly reasonable proposal in the GOP.

So why not Mike Huckabee, what with his talk about immigrants being God's children as well?

Well, talk and actions are two different things, and one of Huckabee's biggest backers makes me wonder what he's doing behind the scenes.

http://www.mikehuckabee.com/index.cfm?FuseAction=Blogs.View&Blog_id=878

An endorsement by the founder of the Minutemen Project and a fierce critic of immigration raises some major red flags, and this was ultimately why I viewed Huckabee with extreme suspicion.

Posted by: Andrew | March 6, 2008 2:50 PM

Mr. Huckabee would have been a disaster with respect to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, since he opposes the two-state solution, and does not believe that Israel should give back territory it currently, and illegally, occupies. This is not to say that McCain would be much better--nor would Hillary Clinton, though there is some evidence that Barak Obama would, at least because he is willing to talk to Syria, Iran, and perhaps Hamas. Huckabee is a Christian Zionist, and therefore an opponent of peace.

Posted by: Arland Jacobson | March 6, 2008 3:01 PM

What's next for Mike Huckabee? Isn't it obvious? His fate is to have his career and ambitions scrutinized to the Nth degree by those who wish conservatism well and those who wish it ill. Those who wish conservatism well will seek to find ways to reconcile his supporters to the larger conservative movement. Those who wish conservatism ill will prophesy the collapse of the right.

Among the latter are Jim Wallis, who desperately hopes that Huckabee will do what Wallis does not have the energy to do: break up the alliance between evangelicals and political conservatives by presenting an alternative approach to government that will appeal to evangelical values. There's only one problem: that's not Huckabee's real agenda.

Meanwhile, Huckabee will just keep doing what he has been doing for the last several months: positioning himself to run for President again in 2012.

Wolverine

Posted by: Wolverine | March 6, 2008 3:08 PM

There is plenty of diversity among religious conservatives. It depends on where and how you get your information. Both of my grandfathers were social conservatives and pacifists, although I'd be shocked if either voted Democrat even once. Pacifism was quite common among Pentecostals of that era, and still is the position of the Mennonites and Amish.
I wish Jim had discovered Huckabee's diversity a lot earlier. Once again, he shows an odd timidity on any issue that might offend liberals. Better late than never, though--
Thanks!

Posted by: Witness for Peace | March 6, 2008 3:13 PM

Chris
Would you please rewrite the last half of your comment? It made no sense and I'm trying to figure out what you were saying.
thx

Posted by: Steve S | March 6, 2008 3:18 PM

It would be interesting if someone did an analysis on at what point Huckabee started his slide. Was it when he answered the foreign policy question embarassingly poorly? Was it when he made the Mormons-think-God-and-Satan-are-brothers remark? Was it when he accepted the endorsement of the Minutemen? Was it when he made the remarks in Warren, MI? Was it when he started running out of money?

I do have to say the way he won in Iowa on a shoestring budget against Romney with his millions was nothing short of amazing!

Posted by: I and I | March 6, 2008 3:26 PM

The inference of Wallis' article is that the evangelical movement, until recently, has not had a social conscience. Perhaps this is to be conceded, but my experience teaches me otherwise. Can the more liberal amongst us point to any achievements such as the creation of Liberty University by Farwell, Samaritan's Purse by Graham, and Prison Ministries by Colson? The eal issue is between Wallis and consevatives boils down to the role of government. Can not some onservatives who oppose government pograms at least be credited for the good works they support?

Posted by: Dick | March 6, 2008 3:34 PM

I'm glad and REJOICE IN THE LORD for Jim Wallis' article of Hope for Mike Huckabee; I believe Huckabee has a great future and pray that he remains true to the Lord. I may not agree with all Huckabee or Wallis says. But I see HOPE for the future in the party they support.
We really need a REVIVAL - AN AWAKENING in the Church and in America. JESUS CAN GIVE THAT AWAKENING BY FAITH, LOVE, HOPE !! In prayer and praise, Wayne one

Posted by: wayne kratzer | March 6, 2008 3:36 PM

Can the more liberal amongst us point to any achievements such as the creation of Liberty University by Farwell, Samaritan's Purse by Graham, and Prison Ministries by Colson?

Yep -- just about any college, hospital or charity, especially in larger cities, founded in the last century. Evangelical "liberals" founded these, but the conservatives want to take credit.

Posted by: Rick Nowlin | March 6, 2008 3:38 PM

Will this also help people see that Iowa isn't everything!!!

Posted by: frankie | March 6, 2008 3:46 PM

Rick N - You can't just make a blanket statement like that and expect to remain credible. Of course there have been 'liberal' developments. I think the point was to say the conservatives demonstrate care and compassion as well, but that is often overlooked for the purposes of creating rhetoric against them. People like Chuck Colson are a great example of compassion. The prison system is an extraordinary mission field with broken spirits. The conservative movement is just as compassionate as the liberal, but it is sometimes exhibited in a different method. Tough love could be defined as compassion combined with accountability. There is nothing wrong with encouraging accountability with those that are down and out and recipients of generosity.

Posted by: Steve S | March 6, 2008 3:47 PM

Other than simply stating it is so, can someone please help me understand how economic inequality between the west and the developing world is a greater moral problem than the ending of 43 million pregnancies worldwide per year...especially with the vast majority of abortions (about 93%) being done as a means of birth control?

It leads to it, albeit indirectly. Where you have greater and greater economic inequality the rich become slaves to that wealth, begin to think they're entitled to it and take more and more (money, opportunity etc.) from those they feel are "beneath" them. This causes havoc among families and even destroys them, which leads women and girls to become sexually active outside of marriage. (That's the short answer.)

Posted by: Rick Nowlin | March 6, 2008 3:50 PM

You can't just make a blanket statement like that and expect to remain credible. Of course there have been 'liberal' developments. I think the point was to say the conservatives demonstrate care and compassion as well, but that is often overlooked for the purposes of creating rhetoric against them.

You don't get it, but as someone who has been attacked by conservatives over the years for not toeing the line, I do.

When conservatives act "compassionately" they often do so to compare themselves with "liberals"; therefore, it's often more for show than a real concern for the poor and powerless, which makes their diaconal efforts irrelevant in God's eyes. I used to watch the 700 Club on a regular basis and remember how heavily it used to promote "Operation Blessing" to bring attention to itself. Realistically, however, they do spend far more on poliical action than on their service projects because the former raises more money.

Posted by: Rick Nowlin | March 6, 2008 4:03 PM

I agree with EG's post about the question of WHO is an immigrant, in light of the fact that white men took over Native American's land. We easily ignore that (ugly) fact. In fact, I find that we also ignore the fact that Jesus Himself was not a white man. Christmas nativity scenes often depict an adorable blond-haired infant with light-colored parents. How many Americans supported the war in lands filled with those like Jesus? We don't even have good counts on casualties of Iraqi people! We have a long way to go as a nation, and I am comforted when I see signs of progress and open discussions.

Posted by: Felicia Braud | March 6, 2008 4:09 PM

To comment on Brian's post, although perhaps ignorantly, don't economics and abortion go hand in hand? Aren't economic circumstances one of the main reasons women get abortions? If so, improving enconomic circumstances for women would make a signficant dent in the number of abortions performed.

It is estimated that 300 million children in the world suffer from hunger and 10.6 milion children die per year die from preventable diseases. 1.2 million children are being trafficked every year and 8.4 millon of children work in horrible forms of child labor like prostitution and debt bondage.

Not that I support abortion, but what mothers want to have children who will end up in the circumstances listed above? It would make abortion highly tempting to me.

So attacking poverty, especially in countries that don't have the wealth that we have, is a great way to attack abortion. Also, attacking poverty will have a much more immediate benefit to children than trying to get Roe vs. Wade overturned.

Posted by: sara | March 6, 2008 4:15 PM

To comment on Brian's post, although perhaps ignorantly, don't economics and abortion go hand in hand? Aren't economic circumstances one of the main reasons women get abortions? If so, improving enconomic circumstances for women would make a signficant dent in the number of abortions performed.

It is estimated that 300 million children in the world suffer from hunger and 10.6 milion children die per year die from preventable diseases. 1.2 million children are being trafficked every year and 8.4 millon of children work in horrible forms of child labor like prostitution and debt bondage.

Not that I support abortion, but what mothers want to have children who will end up in the circumstances listed above? It would make abortion highly tempting to me.

So attacking poverty, especially in countries that don't have the wealth that we have, is a great way to attack abortion. Also, attacking poverty will have a much more immediate benefit to children than trying to get Roe vs. Wade overturned.

Posted by: sara | March 6, 2008 4:16 PM

"i think we have heard the last of mike h. he will fade into the mainstream of american life soon. he has had his time in the limelight of the public stage. after all what really solid thing has he got going now/ not much.he gave a good stubborn shot until the near end. is it book worthy? no. is it speech worthy? no. he may as well retire and take it easy."

I disagree. I think Huckabee has a couple of best-sellers or near best-sellers in him. I think Huckabee could parlay the attention he has gained into a lucrative gig as a social and/or political commentator, similar to the seat once held by Pat Buchanan.

However, for all of the disagreements I have with him, I get the impression that he has too much integrity to pimp himself out like that (integrity seems to be a political liability, rather than an asset).

I suspect Huckabee will move on to do something substantial, perhaps much more quietly and without as much fanfare as running for elected office. We’ll see.

PX

Posted by: neuro_nurse | March 6, 2008 4:19 PM

Frankly, I don't have time to read ALL the blog comments. But some (like Steve's) are appalling and show a need to avoid name-calling by going back to Webster's dictionary.
(1) Being "exclusionist" on certain issues does not constitute being "bigoted" necessarily. Life is full of issues about which we OUGHT to be exclusionary or discriminatory: e.g., we teach children to discriminate between good and bad behavior, wise and foolish choices, etc.––that's what we mean by maturity. So merely taking a stand AGAINST something doesn't make one "discriminatory" or bigoted unless the accuser logically BEGS THE QUESTION by defining "discrimination" in a pejorative sense from the outset.
(2) Strictly speaking, a "fundamentalist" is simply one who believes the fundamental doctrines of the church; it doesn't necessarily entail all the loaded meanings (such as anti-intellectualism) that the media has attached to it over the years.
(3) It is indeed a sad fact about the whole primary process that alternative voices like those of Dennis Kucinich, Ron Paul, and Mike Huckabee tend to get IGNORED by the media and the debate venues, precisely at a time when the public needs to hear about substantive issues. Jim Wallis is right on target is recognizing Huckabee's desire to bring critical issues to the public forum that heretofore have been neglected by right-wing Christian libertarians, who are deluded into thinking that the mythical "free market" (which is never truly free of control) is the answer to all the world's ills.

Posted by: PAUL HANSEN | March 6, 2008 4:44 PM

Jim Wallis wrote:

When Huckabee was governor of Arkansas, he advocated spending money on poor people - behavior which is offensive to the economically conservative wing of the Republican Party.

While I'd stop just short of calling this a lie, it is a rather cartoonish take on conservatism. Conservatives do not consider government spending to help the poor "offensive" in and of itself, at least not in the same sense as some government-funded art (Piss Christ) is offensive. We do believe that much government activism is counterproductive, and oppose a lot of government program on that ground.

There are exceptions. A lot of libertarians would consider government assistance morally repugnant, and a particularly egregious program might trouble our consciences on the ground that it is dishonest to force taxpayers to fund them. So it's not like conservatives have never been offended by government programs intended to help the poor. But these are the exceptions, not the rule.

Bottom line: Jim Wallis isn't lying, but he is oversimplifying things to score cheap rhetorical points. We've gotten used to that, and are no longer offended by it.

Wolverine

Posted by: Wolverine | March 6, 2008 5:09 PM

Whoever you are, quit using my name.

Posted by: Rick Nowlin | March 6, 2008 5:21 PM

I do not have a problem with Huckabee's views or beliefs. My problem is that he was a social conservative who tried to run as a Republican rather than a Democrat.

When looking at his record he is socially conservative yet moderate (at best) on all other views. He should have run as a Democrat because his views fall more in line with the Democratic platform than the Republican platform.

If he is going to be the new spokesperson for evangelicals, do so in the Democratic party. There is nothing wrong with this and Jim's statement that the Religious Right is finished could be correct. The change would be that it is now the Religious Left.

Why try to reform the Republican Party when one's views fit perfectly with the Democratic Party?

Huckabee showed tremendous naiveté in the political process and was therefor dismissed by the political establishment.

As a side note, Huckabee's multiple ethics violations and willingness to accept speaking fees while still running for public office would have come back to haunt him in the General Election. For this lack of integrity - I do not believe Huckabee will continue to be a leader of the evangelical movement.

As another side note - didn't Mitt Romney win the FRC Value Voters Straw Poll? The claim that Huckabee won it is based on a technicality that should be reported if following honest journalistic standards.

Posted by: Christine | March 6, 2008 5:37 PM

Rick Nowlin (is that really you?)

Look up the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons, of which Ron Paul is a member, then you will understand why I, as a health care provider and public health professional, could never support Paul (hint: the AAPS is NOT a medical association, and the Journal of the AAPS is not indexed in the National Library of Medicine because it is not a medical journal)

PX

Posted by: neuro_nurse | March 6, 2008 5:40 PM

What about Huckabee's proposal to create a national sales tax? That type of regressive tax would have disproportionately burdened poor and working people in this country. To me, it demonstrates that he doesn't have the intellectual heft to lead the movement that Jim envisions.

I think Jim may be giving Mr. Huckabee more credit than he deserves in order to support his own goal of breaking the Republican party's grip on Christian voters, a goal I support, but one I don't think will be advanced very far as long Democrats make abortion rights (and government funding for them) a central plank of their platform.

I think more work should be done by Christians within the Democratic party to diminish the influence of the National Organization for Women (NOW) and NARAL Pro Choice America. These special interests virtually assure that pro-life Democrats can't get money from the Democratic party. They also have assured that young, well educated women (and men) in this country view their personal reproductive rights as their most important voting issue: more important than feeding the hungry and housing the homeless; more important than opposing, at its start, an unjust war that has killed tens of thousands of innocents (and more than 4,000 American soldiers); more important than assuring that Medicare and Social Security remain solvent.

Is that the party that you support, Jim?

Posted by: An Independent Dan | March 6, 2008 5:47 PM

I would like to suggest that in practice limited government, a conservative principle, tends to be "limited" largely only by restricting most of its largess -- money, aid, and favorable policies -- to the monied and corporate interests of the country. To be fair, the Founding Fathers believed that those who owned the country should run it.

Huckabee was a maverick who didn't quite buy that altogether; and of course he is likely also probably history.

But neither did he question our dominant militarism with its current war against "terror" which we are waging in Iraq instead of Saudi Arabia where most of the 9/11 terrorists came from and which is home to many of the most extreme Islamic fundamentalists. That war is consuming lives, both Iraqis and Americans, but also billions of dollars and scarce resources which can for that reason can not be used for such positive purposes as alleviating poverty and disease and medical services and such like at home and abroad. Are there not vital moral issues at stake here? I believe, as do many others, that we have wrapped our Cross with the Flag and forgotten who we are and what we should be doing in this world.

Posted by: George De Vries, Jr. | March 6, 2008 5:58 PM

When looking at his record he is socially conservative yet moderate (at best) on all other views. He should have run as a Democrat because his views fall more in line with the Democratic platform than the Republican platform.

If he is going to be the new spokesperson for evangelicals, do so in the Democratic party. There is nothing wrong with this and Jim's statement that the Religious Right is finished could be correct. The change would be that it is now the Religious Left.

Why try to reform the Republican Party when one's views fit perfectly with the Democratic Party?

Christiane, as a Christian and as a Republican, I couldn't disagree more with this. The Republican party is quite big enough for someone like Huckabee. And it's false to say that his views "fit perfectly" with the Democrats--they don't on many topics, abortion,for one.

I do not ideologically align myself with the Democratic party on a lot of things; therefore, I am still a Republican. (Of course it's also true that I stay in the Republican party because of the nature of local politics where I live.)

But I am not an ideological conservative either. The Republican party should be big enough to accept people who are not right-wing ideologues. The party will cut itself off from the American voting public if it continues towing the right-wing line.

It's time for Repblican moderates to take back the Republican party that was hijacked by the right wing.

Peace,

Posted by: Don | March 6, 2008 6:02 PM

Coming from a conservative (political AND spiritual) upbringing, it is a breath of fresh air for me to hear Christians talk about poverty, lack of health insurance, environmental concerns, etc. as spiritual issues. I have longed for politicians that were Christian and that also shared these concerns. Other than Mark Hatfield, it didn't seem like many espoused them.

Even though I don't agree with Mike Huckabee on all issues, I love the fact that he was able to pick out some of the conservative "plank" wihtout embracing it all.

Speaking of political "planks", it may be that this "plank" is close to the original Greek translation when Jesus asks us to take the planks out of our own eyes.... (Matthew 7:5)

sr

Posted by: steve rosas | March 6, 2008 6:03 PM

“…as long Democrats make abortion rights (and government funding for them) a central plank of their platform.”

Funny, I searched the DNC website and found NO mention of abortion, not in the platform or anywhere else.

“I think more work should be done by Christians within the Democratic party to diminish the influence of the National Organization for Women (NOW) and NARAL Pro Choice America. These special interests virtually assure that pro-life Democrats can't get money from the Democratic party.”

That is ridiculous!

Cite your source. Prove to me that either one of these points has the slightest scrap of validity or stop making baseless claims.

CITE YOUR SOURCE!

Posted by: neuro_nurse | March 6, 2008 6:24 PM

Christine, first of all, the Rep. party has been shrinking because of its exclusion of moderates. Time was not so long ago when moderates dominated the party. Many have been driven out because of the rigidity and exclusionary practices of the right-wing.

Why be a Republican if one does not adhere to lower taxes, stronger national defense and social conservative principles?

Most moderate Republicans do hold these values--that's why they're not Democrats, and that's why those who have been driven out have not joined the Democratic party. But there is room to differ regarding precisely what those terms mean and how best to accomplish these goals. For example, I don't think preemptive war contributes to a strong defense; in fact pursuing preemptive war in Iraq has weakened our nation in many ways, not only defensively. But the right wing doesn't want to see it that way--for them it's usually 'my way or the highway.'

Sticking to principles in politics cannot mean intolerance of different viewpoints.

Peace,

Posted by: Don | March 6, 2008 6:47 PM

::When conservatives act "compassionately" they often do so to compare themselves with "liberals"; therefore, it's often more for show than a real concern for the poor and powerless, which makes their diaconal efforts irrelevant in God's eyes.::

In this godless atheist's eyes, that was not my experience when I attended evangelical and very mid 90's religious right type church. So I see your anecdote and raise you one...um...

Posted by: aaron | March 6, 2008 6:59 PM

Very encouraging. Thanks Jim for your voice in broadening the agenda. Just because we haven't been able to get our minds completely around Jesus' vision of the Kingdom of God doesn't mean it should be reduced to 2-3 hot-button issues.

Posted by: CoryT | March 6, 2008 7:31 PM

Thanks Don! Doesn't seem like the R party has served your interests lately. I wonder, if there's a Catch-22 to some of this. If officials are elected with a mandate to cut taxes are they then somehow less accountable as to how they go about spending? Less taxation...less representation? I'm sure that's grossly oversimplified. But then I think President Bush has tended to grossly oversimply and ignore the people to suit his ideology -- and that's why he's grown very unpopular.

Posted by: Denise | March 6, 2008 7:37 PM

I stand corrected with regard to the support for abortion in the 2004 Democratic Party plank.

To demonstrate, however, that support for abortion is not universal among Democrats, I refer you to the following websites:

Democrats for Life in America
http://www.democratsforlife.org

Catholic Democrats
http://www.catholicdemocrats.org/issues/abortion

I especially recommend that you read the news items posted on the home page of Democrats for Life.

I will repeat my protest that the claim that NOW and/or NARAL have some sort of choke hold on the Democratic Party is absolutely absurd.

PX

Posted by: neuro_nurse | March 6, 2008 7:47 PM

Gov. Huckabee stayed in the race long enough to:

1. get invited to make a speech at the convention

2. get invited to add his part to the party platform

3. get a hearing for many years to come.

Posted by: Ron | March 6, 2008 7:57 PM

What I also found interesting about the Huckabee candidacy is that liberal talk radio (Air America), which I'm usually a fan of, insisted on painting him as a right-wing religious nut -- they were always making fun of him for believing the world was created in 6 days 6000 years ago. That's simply not who he is. I don't agree with all of his ideas, but I found him pretty decent for the most part, and I think those attacks were unwarranted.

Posted by: Kathleen | March 6, 2008 8:18 PM

At the risk of sounding like an idiot, Dan what is a progressive christian?

Posted by: moosette | March 6, 2008 8:33 PM

I have seen no mention of what I heard Huckabee say in a radio interview. He would change the constitution to more closely match the Bible. I have heard him say nothing about global warming. What would his intention having to do with the teaching of evolution in public schools? And what of stem cell research? Where does he stand having to do with Armageddon which some fundamentalist want to hasten by urging Israel to take over the full "land of Moses"? These questions and concerns are relevant in that Huckabee would like to be vice president, and there is a chance McCain would choose him. I can see him standing on the sideline waiting for McCain to keel over in one of his rash moments. I'd rather keep the constitution and have someone I knew respected good science, as well as have Christian values. So let's have Hilary or Obama.

Posted by: Dave Wolf | March 6, 2008 9:54 PM

I'm a moderate, mostly leaning Democratic. How DOES one vote if his convictions are: anti-abortion, anti-death penalty, just war, pro-environment, pro-marriage, pro-poor, pro-immigration, anti-tax cuts for the rich, and pro-family (whatever you think that may entail)?

Posted by: ando | March 6, 2008 10:16 PM

"Why does the Republican Party need to expand? Why shouldn't the Democratic Party expand to include you? "

This is an interesting question.

"Look up the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons, of which Ron Paul is a member, then you will understand why I, as a health care provider and public health professional, could never support Paul"

Yeah, many of Paul's viewpoints found resonance in the whacko Constitution party. That was my problem with him, and the reason why he never gained any establishment support (sometimes the establishment actually brings knowledge to the table!)

"To demonstrate, however, that support for abortion is not universal among Democrats, I refer you to the following websites:"

Many of the Right To Life state leaders are Democrats, in fact. Don't get me started on the effectiveness of that particular organization, though.

Posted by: kevin s. | March 6, 2008 10:30 PM

Rick,
You said,
"it's not simply about giving things to the poor -- it's about giving the poor authority to make their own way, and sometimes, but not always, political means must be used."
This is exactly where conservatives and liberals part ways. It has been the liberal template to give other peoples money and not supply education or training to lift them out of poverty.
The conservative template has been to give our own money to educate and lift the poor out of poverty.

You can question peoples heart or motivation, but I will question those who want to spend someone elses money before I question the ones who are willing to spend their own treasure.

Jeff

Posted by: Jeff | March 6, 2008 10:37 PM

Mike Huckabee was accepted as a novelty until he began to win. Then the people at the top of the Republican establishment who think that THEY, and not the people, decide who is to become the next President, decided he must be destroyed. Why? Because he was not one of them, and his views on the Fair Tax, transparency in government spending, and other reforms threatened the status quo that keeps the rich rich and the poor poor. The media were used to good effect in this regard. Huckabee did not lose to any other candidate; in fact, he went amazingly far for someone with no resources and a hostile establishment. He lost to the people who control this country (which is now $9 trillion in debt). Until someone with his courage steps forward and leads the people to a takeover of the government, all your arguments will be academic.

Posted by: David Anderson | March 6, 2008 11:18 PM

Jeff -- You keep missing what I'm saying. It's not simply about money; it's about access. It's about walking in the corridors of power and making your wants/needs known and in turn meeting the wants/needs of others.

You criticize me for questioning people's hearts or motivation. But can you honestly refute me based on the evidence? I mean, c'mon -- conservatives fought tooth-and-nail the civil-rights and anti-apartheid movements and are still resentful toward the NAACP (of which I'm not a member) after all these years. None of these have much to do with "charity."

It has been the liberal template to give other peoples money and not supply education or training to lift them out of poverty.

Utterly false -- in fact, educational opportunities were cut beginning in 1981; I myself found it just a little harder to pay for my own schooling in the 1990s.

See, the conservative mantra was that "government doesn't work" so it could be "dismantled." But they knew full well that doing so would leave them in power, the real goal. It's no accident that the late Bill Buckley was born into privilege and found an intellectual justification for trying to keep it. However, that led to, among other things, the Abramoff lobbying scandal, the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina and, especially, the war in Iraq, which is why they're on the run today.

It's this obsession with power under the guise of ideology that has always caused the warfare we've seen for 30 years, even on this blog, and it needs to stop. ASAP. Paul just mentioned that we now have three "liberals" running for the presidency and that the only "true conservative" from either party was Fred Thompson. I'll tell you what, however: I'm voting for the person I feel can best run the country regardless of ideology, though I haven't yet decided whom. Huckabee, though I will admit some of his stances are problematic, had a handle on such issues, which is why I considered him.

Posted by: Rick Nowlin | March 6, 2008 11:44 PM

Rick,
If you only vote for the one who has the skill for the position, you are missing a huge part of what qualifies someone to be POTUS. The skill and talent to head up as large an orginazation certainly should be a factor, but if that person is skilled, and talented, and say Saddam Hussien, or Hugo Chavez, or Fidel Castro in ideology, then you have a real problem.

Posted by: Paul C. Quillman | March 7, 2008 12:06 AM

It is pretty much known that there is a generosity gap in America.

It is between conservatives and liberals. Conservatives are more generous than liberals. They give more. They volunteer more. They even donate more blood. A book was written on this very topic.

If you get in the mindset where compassion is equated with government action, you will probably do less for your fellow man. It's the government's responsibility. Why should you do anything?

Posted by: Geoff | March 7, 2008 12:13 AM

I am a political progressive, a Democrat (for lack of any more progressive choice!). I fit into the evangelical left. I am a Red Letter Christian. I have spent much of the past 8 years in disgust over the calculated and cynical manipulation of the religious right by the Neoconservatives. I won't dignify them by even recognizing them as true Republicans. I don't agree with everything Mike Huckabee believes, but I have NEVER doubted that he is the real if flawed (aren't we all) McCoy. I told some very dear conservative friends early on that if they were looking for a real Christian to support on the Republican side, they should take a close look at Huckabee. I don't agree with him, and I wouldn't vote for him, but I like and respect him.

Posted by: Claudia | March 7, 2008 1:17 AM

"Unquestionably there is a maturing that is going on within the evangelical movement. It doesn't mean that evangelicals are any less concerned about traditional families and the sanctity of life."

No Christian is going to promote two of the greatest evils in the history of mankind. Abortion and homosexuality will always be "front bunner" issues, no matter how hard the humanist/progressive agenda tries to distract Christians about them. Both are attacks on the Church. Mike Huckabee is a Christian with very good positions for a politician.

James martin. Wallis is a self-annonted religious leader of radical and alien leftist ideology. That's just the truth. It's not a slur.

Posted by: Wake up! | March 7, 2008 8:15 AM

The skill and talent to head up as large an orginazation certainly should be a factor, but if that person is skilled, and talented, and say Saddam Hussien, or Hugo Chavez, or Fidel Castro in ideology, then you have a real problem.

The two are mutually exclusive in my view because committed ideologues generally don't do very well in running a country, especially this one. Just consider the current POTUS, who always was an ideologue (but that became obvious later).

Posted by: Rick Nowlin | March 7, 2008 8:55 AM

What's next for Mike Hucksterbee? My hope, and I'm confident the hope of all sane and rational people, is that this con artist take a long walk on a very short pier.

Mike Hucksterbee should stand as a classic example of what is wrong with this country in every respect - people with too few brain cells geeting involved in politics that demand the attention of reality-based people.

Any person who could stand before a national camera and, with a straight face, confess that he buys into 2nd century creation myths over sound, irrefutable, emperical science and rational thinking should have only one place to go - country clow, the laughing stock of the entire nation.

This man is nothing but a shameless, pandering buffoon. Anyone who would come to the defense of this idiot is risks placing himself in the same laughing-stock category of shamless buffoon.

Rev. El Mundo de Guevara
www.WVCSR.org

Posted by: Rev. El Mundo de Guevara | March 7, 2008 9:21 AM

You can call this an ad hominem if you like, but here's the important question: can you show that I'm wrong? Wolverine

Mr. Wolverine,

No need to enter into a big polemic with you. I do not need to show you that you are wrong. The facts are already proving that. Thanks in part to the good work of Jim Wallis, the stranglehold of the right on the evangelical community is coming to an end. The fact that you analyze issues from the perspective of gay marriage and abortion thankfully does mean that all evangelicals do. Many have been sensitized to the unconscionable and hateful rhetoric of the right on issues such as immigration, the unjust, unconscionable war in Iraq and poverty. I have more faith in the ability of evangelicals to think and act independently than you have displayed in your two issue post.

Your snide remark about Jim Wallis not having "the energy to...break up the alliance between evangelicals and political conservatives" is misplaced. I doubt that even Jim would give himself credit for that. No, it is the failed and unconscionable policies that both conservatives and some evangelicals have supported and advocated that will give that unholy alliance its final coup de grace.

Posted by: JamesMartin | March 7, 2008 9:52 AM

James,

Your selective use of quotations means you miss the point. Again.

I don't seriously expect Jim Wallis to break the alliance between Evangelicals and conservatives. (I'm a conservative for one thing -- do think I really want him to succeed?) but there is one thing he is in a position to do, and that is explore creative solutions to the problems created by abortion and gay marriage.

As a