By Adelle M. Banks
2008 Religion News Service
WASHINGTON — With the race for the Republican presidential nomination now behind him, former candidate Mike Huckabee has many possibilities ahead: Potential vice president to John McCain? GOP adviser? Another run for the White House?
Any way, observers say, one thing seems clear: Huckabee is now a kinder, gentler fresh face of the evangelical movement, poised to follow the path laid out by Pat Robertson, who transformed his failed 1988 campaign into a powerful movement of the religious right.
“I think (Huckabee) reflects in many ways what I would call the new evangelical center,” said author Ron Sider, the president of Evangelicals for Social Action. “He simply is not the old religious right.”
The evangelical “old guard” — Focus on the Family founder James Dobson and even the late Jerry Falwell and D. James Kennedy — no longer represent the newer aspects of the movement, which seek to marry fresh issues (environmental preservation) to traditional causes (the sanctity of human life), observers say. In fact, Dobson didn’t endorse Huckabee until almost all the other Republican candidates were no longer running.
“There’s no doubt in my mind that Huckabee has much greater potential to pull a much wider constituency and because of that, he has a lot more staying power, I think, on the national stage,” said Michael Lindsay, a sociologist at Rice University in Houston and the author of “Faith in the Halls of Power.”
Huckabee campaign spokeswoman Kirsten Fedewa said continuing to work with evangelicals would fit with Huckabee’s vision — and version — of American conservatism.
“He is certainly well-positioned to lead a conservative, or a Christian conservative, movement in this country,” she said.
Richard Cizik, who heads the Washington office of the National Association of Evangelicals, says Huckabee differentiates himself from earlier evangelical leaders, in part because of his “appealing” demeanor.
“Is he a culture warrior? No,” Cizik said. “But you can be for principles without being a culture warrior and obnoxious. He’s just not obnoxious.”
But the extent to which Huckabee sticks with the broadening concerns of evangelicals, such as fighting global hunger and opposing torture, will determine his staying power as a movement leader, Cizik added.
David Kuo, Washington editor for Beliefnet.com, has predicted that Huckabee, a onetime Southern Baptist pastor and former governor of Arkansas, could emerge as a Republican kingmaker.
“At the end of the day, Mike Huckabee has followed Pat Robertson’s
1988 model better than Pat Robertson did,” Kuo said.
Both candidates, he noted, had strong showings in an Iowa GOP primary and ended up with lists of donors that translated into new evangelical voters for the Republican Party.
“He was a lot more successful across the country, he went a lot longer into the race and he defines himself in a completely different way,” Kuo said. “He has the capacity to reach the youth and right now … younger evangelicals are the ones who are more inclined to go to the Democratic Party.”
Pastor Dwight McKissic of Arlington, Texas, said Huckabee’s appeal is not limited to white evangelicals. On his last Sunday on the campaign trail, Huckabee visited McKissic’s predominantly black Baptist church, and said Huckabee drew several rounds of applause as he preached a sermon on being “a good soldier of Jesus Christ.”
“Mike Huckabee has great people skills,” said McKissic, who attended college with Huckabee and marveled at his ability to get 48 percent of the black vote as a candidate for governor in Arkansas. “He’s always worked across various kinds of lines to accomplish goals.”
But Family Research Council President Tony Perkins doesn’t think it will be as easy for Huckabee to gain a post-campaign platform as it was for Robertson.
“Pat Robertson had a TV network around which he could base his operation,” said Perkins, co-author of the new book, “Personal Faith, Public Policy.”
“You’ve got to have some infrastructure. Just a list of names is not going to be enough.”
Perkins thinks Huckabee could help the Republican Party refocus its attention on issues important to social conservatives, but views the former candidate as just one leader of the evangelical movement, not the only one.
“I would clearly see him as an evangelical leader,” said Perkins.
“Is he the next Jerry Falwell? I don’t think there is a next Jerry Falwell. We’re in a different time.”
Copyright 2008 Religion News Service. All rights reserved. No part of this transmission may be distributed or reproduced without written permission.
Beliefnet
Advertisement
posted March 5, 2008 at 7:13 pm
“He is cetainly well-positioned to lead a conservative or Christian Conservative movement in this country”.
A Christian Evangelical Conservative movement, but not a Republican Conservative movement, the difference is vast. Remembering back to Dwight Eisenhowers day, and Nixons you can’t recognize Conservatism as it was once known in 2008.
“He has the capacity to reach the youth…and right now younger Evangelicals are the ones who are more inclined to go to the Democratic Party.”
They are doing this because they see the injustices done in their parents past, and they are reading and thinking for themselves. Thanks be to God.
posted March 5, 2008 at 7:46 pm
Almost anyone would be better than Falwell and Kennedy! Dobson is no prize either.
Maybe Huckabee will be the future for the evangelicals. Time will tell.
“Is he the next Jerry Falwell? I don’t think there is a next Jerry Falwell. We’re in a different time.” Tony Perkins
IMO, that group needs a person as far away from the hateful Falwell as possible. He was not a nice man. It is fortunate that we are in a different time.
posted March 5, 2008 at 8:31 pm
As long as Huckabee is only the “face” for the GOP. he will be OK. But he is clearly not up to the machinations and manipulations required to fill the hoods of the Dark Lords, Darth Rove or Darth Cheney. Nor does he comprehend the diversity of the American population or the depth of abilities of the many people. But he is pleasant and friendly, and if that is all that is needed, he will be fine.
posted March 6, 2008 at 8:19 am
I’m not really all that concerned about whom the public views as the so-called “spokesperson” for evangelicals. If it is Huckabee, that is fine with me. What I take exception to is the statement that Jerry Falwell was “not a nice man.” I take exception to that because Mr. Falwell was actually a great man. He built the world’s largest evangelical university from nothing. He took time to interact with his students even though he did not need to. He and his church ministered to thousands of people and helped them overcome challenges. His books and sermons ministered to thousands more. He was a man who loved God, loved his country, loved his family, and loved the people God gave him to minister to. No evidence was given by the writer who said he was not a nice man perhaps because there is so much evidence otherwise.
I was not a supporter of Mr. Falwell. I did not go to his school or attend his church. I never met the man personally. But the volume of his work for God and for people is overwhelming and speaks for itself. He was more than a nice man. He was a man of God.
posted March 6, 2008 at 9:51 am
“Huckabee is now a kinder, gentler fresh face of the evangelical movement” !!! ???
“the new evangelical center” !!! ???
“He simply is not the old religious right” !!! ???
Absurd. Pure and utter nonsense.
This is a man who wanted to quarantine people with AIDS, and who (STILL) wants to change the Constitution so that God’s gay and lesbian children are kicked out of its promises and protections of equal treament before the law.
This is a man who blithely compares same-sex consenting adult human relationships to “marrying an animal or a child”.
His is no new fresh face – his is the same old face of lies and hatred. This is an “appealing” demeanor”???
“Is he the next Jerry Falwell?” Who on earth thinks we NEED one?
Richard Cizik says, “He’s just not obnoxious”. Sorry, but I strongly disagree. Just because his smarm is coated with “charm” doesn’t make his ideas repugnant.
If he indeed “much greater potential to pull a much wider constituency”, that doesn’t say much for people who call themselves Christian.
posted March 6, 2008 at 9:54 am
WC,
“What I take exception to is the statement that Jerry Falwell was “not a nice man.”
Take all the exception you want. It doesn’t change the fact that he absurdly, hatefully blamed 9/11 and a coupla hurricanes on god’s gay and lesbian children. Just because he was “nice” to people like you doesn’t mean he didn’t have his mean-spirited, duplicitous side. I could list several dozen quotes of his that were pure, vile evil, hate-filled rhetoric, not to mention the bearing of false witness.
posted March 6, 2008 at 11:36 am
I would agree that Huckabee puts a friendlier face on the Religious Right, but his views are just as repugnant and un-American as Robertson or Falwell’s ever were.
posted March 6, 2008 at 2:02 pm
I disagree with those who think homosexuality is a morally correct lifestyle. But I wish no ill toward anyone of that persuasion.
I disagree with Hilary Clinton and Barack Obama on politics. But I do not question their integrity nor their right to proclaim and act upon what they believe.
I disagree with those who proclaim abortion is a morally right choice. But I have never and would never picket an abortion clinic, be rude to a woman who had had an abortion, or set fire to a doctor’s office where abortions are performed.
In fact, I would never say that any of these people are “not nice.”
So why do those who disagree with me and others in the evangelical Christian community (or religious right if that’s the nickname you prefer for us) insist on calling us names, claiming we live in the past, and that we are at least as evil if not more than the evil men who plotted the 911 terror?
Can we not disagree on basic issues, but still respect each other? Can we not support the candidates who most reflect our positions, yet still treat each other with civility?
Why must a person I respect be “not nice” just because you do not agree with him? Is it not sufficient for you to say, “I disagree with Jerry Falwell, or Mike Huckabee or Windsor’s Child,” and not call names or ridicule the person who holds beliefs different than yours? Is this an indication you are insecure in your beliefs? Does it mean you are guilty of prejudice? And does name calling really strengthen your position?
I may disagree with you, but I will defend your right to disagree, and I will respect you. Will you do the same for me?
posted March 6, 2008 at 3:49 pm
Windsor’s Child,
“So why do those who disagree with me and others in the evangelical Christian community (or religious right if that’s the nickname you prefer for us) insist on calling us names, claiming we live in the past, and that we are at least as evil if not more than the evil men who plotted the 911 terror?”
I don’t think I have ever said or implied that you are “at least as evil if not more than those responsible for 9/11″.
But you see, Mr. Falwell said that gay people were the ones “responsible” for 9/11. Can you see the difference?
As for insisting on “calling us names”, is not comparing gay relationships to beastiality and pedophilia (a la Hucklebee), and to murder and necrophilia and “marrying a plant”, the very same thing only, dare I suggest it, one heckuva lot worse – as in defamation and the bearing of false witness?
Operating under the ‘do to others what you would have done to you’ principle, might I humbly suggest that if the “evangelical ‘Christian’ community” would stop saying THOSE things about God’s gay and lesbian children, then I predict that the name-calling YOU decry would lessen proportionately or cease entirely.
As for “living in the past”, it is clear that Mr. Hucklebee wants the US to revert to the generally fictitious “values” society purportedly held in the 1950s.
“Can we not disagree on basic issues, but still respect each other?”
Yes we can. But the necrophila, beastiality, pedophilia, murder comparisons are IN NO WAY respectful. If you want respect, you must be the change you wish to see in the world and exhort the “evangelical Christian community” to stop with THOSE disrespectful charges. Mr. Hucklebee could go first.
“Can we not support the candidates who most reflect our positions, yet still treat each other with civility?”
“Civility”??? !!! Please slowly and carefully re-read what I just typed above and then try to tell me with a, ahem, straight face that these are civil things. Ask yourself it YOU would like those things said about you, and you will have your answer.
posted March 6, 2008 at 3:59 pm
WC,
“Why must a person I respect be “not nice” just because you do not agree with him?”
Because ir goes beyuond mere ‘disagreement’ and well into Falwell’s denigration of gays and lesbians as persons. Or do you “agree” with Falwell that gays WERE responsible for 9/11 and Hurricane Katrina? See what I mean about this not merely being about disagreement, and what I mean about being mean-spirited?
“Is it not sufficient for you to say, “I disagree with Jerry Falwell, or Mike Huckabee or Windsor’s Child,” and not call names or ridicule the person who holds beliefs different than yours?”
Is Hucklebee sugesting that my (legal) marriage is akin to “marrying an animal or a child” NOT “calling names or ridicule”???
“Is this an indication you are insecure in your beliefs?”
Absolutely not. I am extremely secure in my beliefs which is why I defend them so vociferously. For that matter, if America indeed DOES have freedom of religion, why should those who, on religious grounds, disagree with your POV not be free to follow their faith’s beliefs? Why must yours be pushed into law (a la Hucklebee’s desired Constitutional change). I assure you I am not a member of his Church, so I’m not sure why I (or any other gay person) ought to be forced to follow its tenets.
“Does it mean you are guilty of prejudice?”
Perhaps I am prejudiced about the intolerant. But I would never force anyone to follow my beliefs. Anyone who doesn’t believe in same-sex marriages should be entirely free not to have one.
“And does name calling really strengthen your position?”
Does Hucklebee’s name calling strengthen his?
posted March 6, 2008 at 4:18 pm
Windsors Child-
We have often disagreed. I have never called you hateful nor, evil. However, to the best of my knowledged you have not stated that lgbt people caused 9/11 (as Rev Falwell did). And, to my knowledge you have not stated that doctors who perform abortions should be arrested and/or gay people with AIDS should be locked up.
So, while we do not agree on equal-rights for lgbt people…nor, on the right of a female to have an abortion….I respect your opinion/beliefs.
As fellow humans, I respect the late Rev Falwell and former Gov Huckabee….however, I do not have respect for them as religious leaders.
To turn this around, what would you think of prominent lgbt activists if he/she stated the 9/11 and some hurricanes had been caused by Evangelicals. And/or, Evangelicals with cancer should be locked away? Would you really have much respect for them as leaders? I am not askind if you would still love the individual as I believe you would…I am asking if you would really have much respect for them as leaders.
For the record, I gain a lot of respect for Rev Falwell after he appologized. There are countless issues on which I disagree with former Gov Huckabee…however, I do not think he is evil. John Hagee I believe to be evil.
Peace!
posted March 6, 2008 at 8:22 pm
I think Huckabee would be an improvement over Falwell, etc. in that he had inclinations to improve education and some other things. Of course those were precisely the things he had to flip flop away from to have any chance. And his ideas on changing the Constitution still make me hope he gets retired to a little church somewhere where he can’t hurt many people.
posted March 10, 2008 at 10:48 am
WC,
“I disagree with those who think homosexuality is a morally correct lifestyle.”
So do I, for it isn’t a “lifestyle” to begin with.
“But I wish no ill toward anyone of that persuasion.”
Then kindly stop with the continual bearing of false witness, ‘cuz it kinda gives the impression that you DO bear ill will.