As Iowa Republicans prepared to caucus yesterday, polls showed Mike Huckabee, the Southern Baptist minister-turned-politician, leading in some polls and placing a close second to Mitt Romney in others. The core of Mr. Huckabee’s support, of course, comes from evangelical voters. Couching his policy positions in the language of faith and morality, Mr. Huckabee portrays himself as the dream candidate of the religious right. In October, he boasted to a gathering of conservative Christian activists: “I don’t come to you, I come from you.” The “language of Zion,” he said, was “his mother tongue and not a recently acquired second language.” Echoing the Gospels, he told the Des Moines Register editorial board that the essence of what made him tick was: “Do unto others as you would have done unto you.” He admitted that his faith shapes his policy, but “if [voters] understand in what way, I think that they will say ‘good, that’s the kind of policy we would like.’ ”
But one wonders whether his newfound supporters would really say that if they took a close look at his policies. With increasing frequency, Mr. Huckabee invokes his faith when advocating greater government involvement in just about every aspect of American life. In doing so, Mr. Huckabee has actually answered the prayers of the religious left.
I am deeply suspicious that “evangelical voters” will support Huckabee. We’ll see I guess. But I’m an evangelical voter and would gladly vote for Thompson or Romney over Huckabee.
My suspicion is . . . that the mainstream [read: politically liberal] media urgently desires evangelical voters to support Huckabee. But I’m just not certain that that’s going to happen.
In one of the debates, Romney came down on Huckabee for extending eligibility of scholarships to children of illegal immigrants saying, “In this country, we don’t punish children for the sins of their fathers.” The amount of money involved was neglible going to best and the brightest, money that would probably come back ten fold. I was impressed.
Well, they did it in Iowa, Sarah, but it’s a special place. I agree with your analysis. The liberal media want Huckabee because they believe (correctly, I think) that the Democrat will eat him for lunch in the general election. They want McCain for the same reason. As soon as one or the other got the nomination the media would turn on them.
I suggest genuine conservatives get online and send some money to either Romney or Thompson now.
Thompson is going nowhere. I seriously get the sense his campaign was his wife’s idea.
Romney, as I said elsewhere, has a better shot coming out as a Buddhist. And conservatives from Taxachussets that I speak with don’t think much of him.
Iowa voters are not very representative of either party, IMO.
Governor Huckabee ought to note the generally inverse relationship between the degree of government intervention in society and the level of religious fervor of those populations before trying to bring Heaven down to terra firma.
He’s a disaster waiting to happen.
#5 – he’s already been a disaster as Gov. of AR, raising taxes, pardoning violent criminals. He’s shown no grasp of foreign policy (remember that thing caled 9-11? it could happen again). He is the Republican Jimmy Carter.
If he by some way gets the nomination, there will certainly be a significant 3rd party candidate. And the Dems will almost certainly win…..
I’d like to confine the damage to the Ozarks, #6.
Sarah, I’m seeing a fair amount (read, way more than for anyone else) of Huckabee support around the Baptist circles I come into contact with.
Perhaps it’s just a means of getting the more “serious” GOP candidates to start paying attention to the social conservative base.
I can hope so, anyway 😉
The article raises a question that has been perplexing Christians for some time. To what extent should Christians try to accompish Christian duties (e.g. feed the poor) through government as opposed to individual or church effort? Often, folks on the right and left wil agree on a general goal but differ sharply on how (e.g. govt vs individual/church action) to achieve it.
From a purely secular perspective, there really should be only one criterion for how to accomplish an agreed goal: what is the most effective way of achieving it?
But for Christians there is a second concern. Christians are called to their duties as a means of reflecting glory on God. The utilization of the government to accomplish those tasks can have the unintended consequence of obscuring the faith-based origin of the motivation for those good deeds. I.e. once government is involved, God doesn’t get the credit.
This dilemma was discussed about 15 years ago in an Atlantic article entitled, “Can We Be Good Without God?” It concluded that Judeo-Christian ethics were so firmly interwoven into our society that they could no longer be separated. (This is a fact conveniently overlooked by the church-state separation folks.)
One of the most profound observations came from the Pope (JP2). He suggested that major social problems were inherently incapable of govt solutions, that soutions could only come from properly-motivated individuals or groups. Any reasonable person who looks at all the (unintended) negative consequences of The Great Society must question the wisdom of massive government “solutions” to social problems.
Bill…I have to admit when I read your statement, [i]I.e. once government is involved, God doesn’t get the credit.[/i] my response was, “so what.” I don’t think God wants “credit” or has any concern that we’re “reflecting glory.”
Look at Matthew 25: [i] 35 for I was hungry and you gave Me food; I was thirsty and you gave Me drink; I was a stranger and you took Me in; 36 I was naked and you clothed Me; I was sick and you visited Me; I was in prison and you came to Me.’
37 “Then the righteous will answer Him, saying, ‘Lord, when did we see You hungry and feed You, or thirsty and give You drink? 38 When did we see You a stranger and take You in, or naked and clothe You? 39 Or when did we see You sick, or in prison, and come to You?’ 40 And the King will answer and say to them, ‘Assuredly, I say to you, inasmuch as you did it to one of the least of these My brethren, you did it to Me.’ [/i]
There’s nothing there about giving God credit. God is telling us just do it. Doing those things is what it means to be about the business of the Gospel. God doesn’t need our credit. He needs us to be His presence in the world. God with skin on and all.
Sarah and others, I experienced Mike Huckabee’s presence three weeks ago in NH, along with Chuck Norris. Frankly, my friends and I went because we respect Chuck Norris and his Christian stand. We started paying attention to Mr. Huckabee and ultimately (at least my husband and I) decided that Chuck Norris was wrong. I will be placing my primary vote Tuesday for McCain. I might have voted for Richardson, but didn’t re-register independent in time to get the Democratic ballot. Any way you slice it, I will be unlikely to vote for the “winner.” And I also am tired of voting for the “least of evils.”
NancyNH, see [url=http://new.kendallharmon.net/wp-content/uploads/index.php/t19/article/8906/#166301 ]here[/url]. As I said there, I don’t see how you can vote for the panderer.
Re #10: How about, “Let your light so shine before men that they may see your good works and glorify your Father.” Plus many other passages admonishing us to give God the credit for our good works.
How about, “Take heed that you do not do your charitable deeds before men, to be seen by them. Otherwise you have no reward from your Father in heaven.”
Do good because you love God. Do good for God.
You actually support my point. We are not suposed to do good works in such a way that we get credit; the credit is always to be given to God.
If you say so Bill. :rolling eyes