I enjoy Jim Geraghty’s coverage over at The Campaign Spot for National Review Online. He’s not shilling for any candidate. I don’t think he has made any endorsements. He just blogs what he sees and what he is sees out of Mike Huckabee is complicated.
Geraghty makes the point that while Huckabee has appealled to conservative evangelicals, he has not gotten beyond that base because much of what he says is only understood by those of us in that circle.
That is very true and very timely. I have spent so much time reading and writing about how pundits are misunderstanding this and that about Huckabee. I didn’t (and don’t) really support him (or anyone else for that matter), but I felt compelled to speak up for a fellow Baptist that was being maligned for no real reason (on some issues, on other’s his positions are fair game).
Geraghty agrees with that point and that’s why Huckabee’s campaign is doomed unless he can show some real strength on the issues that matter to all conservatives not just social conservatives: smaller government, lower taxes, tough on crime and terrorism.
I’m not saying he can’t do it, but he’d better start. If he’s not able to pull me ((a Southern, evangelical conservative) over to his side, he’s going to have trouble.
If he barely appeals to us, I doubt he has a chance.
I would argue that Huckabee is supported by evangelicals because he is the only logical choice..
If you listen to Huckabee outside of the campaign context you really get a feel for him. I think he is actually the only GOP canidate that appeals to voters who did not vote republican in the last few elections. He parts with the GOP where the GOP is wrong, and sticks with them where they are right, and he is unapologetic about it. In past elections he has earned a large portion of the minority vote, for example.
He speaks plainly and everyone knows where he stands. He is winning because he is the only candidate that has anywhere near the talent of Reagan to speak to the american people
Most of the other canidates are fighting to retain the base, but Huck is working to expand it. Retaining the base will not be enough to win this election.
But if the base doesn't vote for him or is not exciting about voting for him, that doesn't bode well.
Again, I would and can vote for Huckabee, but the more I hear from him the more populist and big government he sounds. I don't like that.
I think evangelicals should vote for Huckabee. Clearly he has good Christian values and has raised his children well. By their works shall ye know them…. http://www.utopiarescue.com/oldsite/stop_animal_t… http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,268762,00.htm…
Why am I not surprised that one Republican frontrunner ties a dog to the roof of his car and another raised his son to turn out a dog killer and torturer?
While the evangelical, "Christian" base dislikes Huckabee because he actually took some Christian positions with respect to the poor and the children of illegal immigrants (at least for a while)?
This is what the "Christian" party looks like?
I hope there is a Christian God sometimes, just so you people get what's coming to you in the afterlife.
Why am I not surprised that one Republican frontrunner ties a dog to the roof of his car and another raised his son to turn out a dog killer and torturer?
You are not surprised for many reasons. One is, you have negative expectations about humans, but only republicans. One day you may wake up and realize that all humanity, as the bible says, is sinful.
Second, you are not surprised because you appear to be cynical, and would rather sling mud than make intelligent conversation and judgments.
This is what the "Christian" party looks like?
That's your second mistake. The Republican party is not the "christian" party. In fact, recent polls have shown that evangelicals vote based on values and issues, and do NOT follow the Republican party when it abandons those values.
However, since the liberal parties favor the killing of the unborn, socialistic tax schemes, and anti-religionist secularism (though libs are glad to give lip service to faith in order to get votes), we are forced to take the other option, which is the imperfect Republican party.
I hope there is a Christian God sometimes, just so you people get what's coming to you in the afterlife.
I have good news for you. God is not partial, and will judge all according to their hearts and deeds. The bad news is, you will probably fare no better than those you despise. That is, UNLESS you believe that Jesus was punished for you, that he was raised from the dead to prove it, and can give you a new life if you receive Him. Otherwise, your hope for the reality of the Christian God is going to put you in the same position as those "other" sinners, including the hypocrites you may use to excuse yourself. (the bible says that those who compare themselves to their peers are not wise – better to compare yourself to truth and see reality).
But to hope for justice, that is a good thing – don't you now think that the Christian message IS loving and just? That hypocrites and liars WON'T get away with it, even if they are religious (unless they are truly repentant and forgive by having faith that Jesus was punished for them?).
Hi Seeker:
You wrote: That's your second mistake. The Republican party is not the "christian" party. In fact, recent polls have shown that evangelicals vote based on values and issues, and do NOT follow the Republican party when it abandons those values.
However, since the liberal parties favor the killing of the unborn, socialistic tax schemes, and anti-religionist secularism (though libs are glad to give lip service to faith in order to get votes), we are forced to take the other option, which is the imperfect Republican party.
Sorry to keep coming back to make negative comments. Even though we disagree radically I think you are running a pretty respectful blog here. But I do have to object to a couple of your above points:
1. Nearly all voters vote for the candidate who they think best represents their values. The whole Republican "values" voter meme is a silly MSM formulation.
2. There is nothing about liberal political economy (the stuff you incorrectly call "socialist tax schemes") that conflicts with Christianity–even actual socialist schemes don't conflict with Christianity. There are good Christian Republicans who oppose liberal economics and also good Christians who support it. Christians do indeed have a choice about who to vote for. The same is true for the abortion issue, or the issue of social rights for homosexuals. Even theological conservatives can consistently support (or oppose) full legal equality for gays and straights, or abortion rights. Faithful practice of Christianity doesn't require any Christians to vote Republican.
your friend
Keith
There is nothing about liberal political economy (the stuff you incorrectly call "socialist tax schemes") that conflicts with Christianity-
Thanks for the compliments, I really appreciate them. I am learning to be more civil, but it ain't easy, and you often provide a better example ;).
But while I understand your point, I do think it is arguable – that is, I believe that I could argue that *some* 'socialist' tax schemes violate biblical principle, if not natural theology, which supposedly reflects biblical.
For example, the type of welfare we had where we were encouraging dependence on the state instead of personal responsibility, or a system that actually rewarded women for having more women out of wedlock – these systems CAN be dismissed as unbiblical.
I also think that some have made good arguments that social security is unbiblical, because each person, his family, and the church are responsible to take care of themselves. This is why, btw, the ahmish are exempt from SS taxes – because they believe and practice that the individual is responsible for saving, that secondarily, their family (children first) should care for them, and then after that, the religious community.
Even more, giving should be done willingly, and not forced. And basically, a lot of social programs amount to 'forced giving,' which is arguably unbiblical.
Even more, if you read books like Liberating the Nations, you will see that there are biblical models/arguments for limiting government.
Also, in extreme cases, like in true socialism/communism, where you don't reward people for their effort, but rather, redistribute wealthy, that violates biblical principle as well, and in reality, of course, encourages personal laziness.
All I am saying is that, while my claim is arguable, it is not true to say that social programs are all supported by scripture – I would say that many are unbiblical, others are neutral, and some may even be biblical – but my contention is that many of the liberal social programs are unbiblical.
Faithful practice of Christianity doesn't require any Christians to vote Republican.
But it may require one NOT to vote Democrat, esp. if you feel that abortion is murder.
Hi Seeker:
Not wanting to hijack the discussion to one about what policies the US ought to take, I'm going to stay focused on what politics is required by the Gospel of Christ.
You wrote:
For example, the type of welfare we had where we were encouraging dependence on the state instead of personal responsibility, or a system that actually rewarded women for having more women (children?) out of wedlock – these systems CAN be dismissed as unbiblical.
Again, leaving for a different discussion the supposed negative effects of the pre-welfare reform welfare system, the system wasn't rewarding people for having more children, it was giving benefits to the children who lived in the household. The parents were charged with being stewards of the benefits that the children deserved, so more children equals more benefits for the household. It also meant more expenses. There is nothing unbiblical about a system that provides more or less equal benefits per child.
Now obviously, the Christian who believes that the welfare system made things worse for the children would be obligated to oppose said system. But the Gospel doesn't specify how the political economy ought to be organized.
You also wrote:
I also think that some have made good arguments that social security is unbiblical, because each person, his family, and the church are responsible to take care of themselves. This is why, btw, the ahmish are exempt from SS taxes – because they believe and practice that the individual is responsible for saving, that secondarily, their family (children first) should care for them, and then after that, the religious community.
Here's what taking care of yourself and family means: given the world you live in, taking actions that will provide for their and your needs. Using the government programs that exist would be part of that care taking. SS would only be wrong if SS taxes were taking from taxpayers something they had a right not to give up. The Bible doesn't give any reason to think that SS taxes are theft, nor does it advocate a particular political economy (capitalist, welfare state capitalism, socialist etc.).
Also:
Also, in extreme cases, like in true socialism/communism, where you don't reward people for their effort, but rather, redistribute wealthy, that violates biblical principle as well, and in reality, of course, encourages personal laziness.
Redistributing wealth would only be wrong if you assume that wealth was previously distributed properly. That's a political question unaddressed by the Bible. The principle of Jubilee gives some support for redistribution to correct the inevitable injustice that sinful human interactions cause, but I won't argue that the God demands redistribution. The point is that you have to add non-biblical judgments to deduce anti-liberalism from the Gospel of Christ, and faithful Christians can disagree about those judgments.
Finally, you mentioned abortion:
But [Christianity] may require one NOT to vote Democrat, esp. if you feel that abortion is murder.
Sure, if you believe that those things Democrats have supported are wrong morality requires you to oppose them. The same is true for me: since I believe that the unregulated capitalist system is unjust to the poor and working class, Christianity obliges me to vote against the Republican Party. But those judgments (about abortion, gay legal rights, capitalism/socialism) are extra-biblical and faithful Christians can disagree about them.
At least that's how it seems to me.
your friend
Keith
Again, I think this area is arguable, but I would not claim that the bible is neutral on these issues. But again, a welfare system that gives a hand out and not a hand up, I would say, IS rewarding unbiblical behavior – while you rightly say that the bible does not specify certain structures, i think you could argue that certain programs violate biblical principle or are aligned with them.
In the case of non-reformed welfare, while on the surface it might appear to be compassionate and aligned with God's command to be compassionate, I would argue that it contradicts many more biblical principles, and more deeply, and in the end, should be seriously reformed or dismissed.
1. We must encourage personal responsibility
– if a man does not work (and is able to), neither should you feed him
– if a man does not provide for his own family, he is worse than an unbeliever
– husbands, love your wives
2. We must allow each sphere of government to manage its own responsibilities, and not usurp the responsibilities of others. It is NOT the state's responsibility to raise (or educate) my children, nor is it the church's responsibility to maintain public order.
3. Systems that encourage dependence rather than independence, or remove the incentive for personal reward (you should let the ox eat when treading out the grain) are unbiblical – hence, hand-out welfare, and wealth redistribution schemes that take money from the industrious and risk-taking and give it to the lazy and unmotivated are unjust.
And regarding redistribution, while I agree that govt should protect against monopolies and abuse by the powerful, the fact is, even if you redistribute, money will always concentrate into the hands of the industrious, skillful, as well as the dishonest and threatening mob types.
The problem here is, while government should set limits and regulate/control, redistribution is really an unbiblical solution to the problem of human depravity – while i agree that 'unrestrained capitalism' is risky and perhaps wrong because you need to restrain the wickedness of men, the restraint of redistribution, I would argue, is biblically unsound, for the reasons I have alluded to. Regulation and legal limits, fine. Penalizing the successful to reward those who have no incentive to help themselves is wrong.
Workfare may be ok, but I still think that, while scripture does not specify all of these things, it can be argued that certain systems more egregiously violate the laws of God.
And quite frankly, I am shocked that anyone who calls themself a Christian can be apathetic about abortion, and place that in a lower place than social reforms, even if the latter affect the poor, esp. when most liberal programs, I think, violate the biblical principles of government.
I think this perspective is based more on worldly 'compassion' and priorities than biblical thinking and truth. In the end, such unbiblical social programs have a 'form of godliness, but deny the power' – i.e. they look noble, but because they violate scriptural principle (not in their ends, but in their proposed means), they are actually not really Christian at all.
Hi Seeker:
It seems to me that your comments are smuggling in non-biblical assumptions into your analysis. For example:
you wrote about non-reformed welfare:
1. We must encourage personal responsibility
– if a man does not work (and is able to), neither should you feed him
– if a man does not provide for his own family, he is worse than an unbeliever
– husbands, love your wives
Welfare reform imposed limits for welfare benefits and work requirements for families headed by single mothers. Being a stay-at-home mom IS work, in fact it is very important work that our capitalist system doesn't place any value on. There is nothing unbiblical about a welfare system that permits welfare mothers to stay at home with their children. As far as I know, welfare eligibility for men always depended on whether or not the man could work.
Also, the present capitalist system allows people who own enough capital to retire early and not work, drawing pay for the capital they own. You might argue that they deserve the dividends they get, but this isn't a biblical judgment, it's a political one. The Bible doesn't specify capitalism and its rules as the system God wants.
2. We must allow each sphere of government to manage its own responsibilities, and not usurp the responsibilities of others. It is NOT the state's responsibility to raise (or educate) my children, nor is it the church's responsibility to maintain public order.
Wrt to raising your children, liberal political economy agrees. Wrt education, I'd say that education is a social responsibility. It's at least arguably going to be impossible to find many parents who have the expertise or the time to teach their children the science, math history, language skills they'll need to be productive citizens. There is nothing unbiblical about having public education.
Systems that encourage dependence rather than independence, or remove the incentive for personal reward (you should let the ox eat when treading out the grain) are unbiblical – hence, hand-out welfare, and wealth redistribution schemes that take money from the industrious and risk-taking and give it to the lazy and unmotivated are unjust.
The thing is, every bit of your objection to "redistribution" depends on the distribution that results from capitalism without redistribution being correct. That assumption doesn't derive from the Bible. It derives from conservative political economy.
your friend
Keith