The religious middle and Mike Huckabee

There’s an article in The American Conservative in which the author, Michael Brendan Dougherty, whines about the fact that Huckabee isn’t getting much support from “Beltway conservatives.”

What Mr. Dougherty doesn’t seem to understand is that a presidential candidate, in order to be viable, must hail from the religious middle. What’s the religious middle? That can best be explained by reference to the extremes. At one end are people who believe the Bible is bogus. This includes atheists as well as people from other religions such as Hindus or Buddhists. At the other end are people who believe that the Bible is the literal word of God.

While it’s obvious to many that an atheist (sadly) has no chance of being elected President of the United States, it’s somewhat less obvious that someone who believes that the Bible is the literal word of God is also outside of the mainstream, and thus not easily electable outside of Bible Belt states. Only 33% of General Social Survey respondents in 2000-2006 believe that the Bible is the literal word of God. (Furthermore, only 17% of respondents with at least a Bachelor's degree believe that. People who have graduated from college have a disproportionate impact on public opinion because they control the news media.) The correct middle view is that the Bible is inspired by God, but that you shouldn’t take everything in it literally. Evolution is the key litmus test. The only people who don’t believe in evolution are those who believe that only the book of Genesis contains the true origin of the species.

Of course it’s hard to know what people truly believe. Are the Clintons really atheists? As long as they attend church, they demonstrate sufficient religiosity to pass the test. The same applies on the right. George W. Bush may personally believe that Genesis is the literal word of God, but at least he knows enough to be vague about his personal beliefs when speaking publicly; he supports teaching “intelligent design” along with evolution, which is not the same as saying that only the Book of Genesis should be taught in the schools.

When Huckabee makes public the fact that his has a minority view on religion, he makes himself unelectable. And that is why he’s not going to win the Republican nomination (in addition to the fact that he’s also totally out of his league when discussing real policy issues).

I suspect that Mitt Romney believes that the Book of Mormon is the literal word of God (why else would he send all five of his sons to BYU to be indoctrinated to that effect?), but he has been cagey enough to hide his true beliefs and thus not ruin his electability.

Comments

[GOP Lurker]

The literal truth of the Bible was a YouTube debate question. Everybody basically said parts of it are allegorical. Huckabee was the only one who said so without appearing extremely nervous. It took Nixon to go to China, and it took a preacher to say the Bible is not literally true.

Though I think the question was stupid and unfair, Romney got off easy. IIRC the Mormons think the Bible was corrupted, not merely allegorical in parts. I think Romney's answer was not only at odds with his personal beliefs, but the stated doctrine of his faith.

However, I agree with your basic point that Huck is outside the mainstream, and I suspect he takes the Bible much more seriously than any other candidate.

I think an interesting religious question is why do nominal Catholics like Giuliani, John Kerry, etc, insist on staying Catholic (but not being able to take the sacraments) when there's no political harm in being Protestant?

[trumwill]

Evolution is the key litmus test. The only people who don’t believe in evolution are those who believe that only the book of Genesis contains the true origin of the species.

The litmus of belief in evolution has to be reconciled with the fact that creationism polls better than evolution does.

[David Alexander]

I think an interesting religious question is why do nominal Catholics like Giuliani, John Kerry, etc, insist on staying Catholic (but not being able to take the sacraments) when there's no political harm in being Protestant?

Because we're not interested in joining a third rate cult.

Seriously, becoming a Protestant requires a big mental shift for most Catholics. I'm much to addicted to the symbolism behind the Eucharist to join a Christian denomination that de-emphasizes it, and focuses squarely on the Gospel. If I ever fled the Catholic Church, the only place I'd find any solace is an High Anglican church due to the similarity in church practices. I'd imagine that some Catholics feel the same way, and would rather stay in the Catholic Church than to join a Protestant church.

[Half Sigma]

trumwill: "creationism polls better than evolution"

And what percentage of people taking the polls can explain the difference between Genesis, "creationism," "intelligent design," and scientific evolution?

Furthermore, I don't see this in the GSS. Maybe I'll post about this tomorrow.

[c.o. jones]

"I think an interesting religious question is why do nominal Catholics like Giuliani, John Kerry, etc, insist on staying Catholic..."

Probably for the same reason my wife (who divorced 2 husbands before she and I got married) does: it's how she was brought up and she finds comfort in the rituals. I happen to think that the Church, at least as it exists here in Southern California, is basically an organized criminal enterprise, but that's a debate for a different time.

[Peter]

Jimmy Carter got elected despite being very much on the Huckabee side of the spectrum. And that was in 1976, moreover, a time when America was much less religious than it is today.

It was a different era, and Ol' Jimmy kept his religion on the down low (unlike the Huckster).

BTW, I've met a few high-IQ Mormons who, when pressed, admit they have a hard time swallowing the Mormon dogma but they LOVE the community, morals and sense of purpose (much like secular Jews). I suspect Romney falls into this camp.

Beyond a certain intelligence level, it's difficult to construct your life around tall tales from primative ancient cultures. All you can do is extract what is good, clean it up a bit and try to apply it to modern living.

[Peter]

It was a different era, and Ol' Jimmy kept his religion on the down low (unlike the Huckster).

It may have been a different era in some respects, most notably being in the aftermath of Watergate, but I'm old enough to remember Carter's campaign and he most definitely did NOT keep quiet about his religious beliefs.

[Eugene]

The only indoctrination that goes on at BYU is the product of being surrounded by people who generally believe the same things you do and adhere to the same moral and social values you do (and if they don't, keep it to themselves). That's why parents send their kids there. It's safe. It's clean. The chances of dying from alcohol poisoning or catching an STD are astronomically low compared to most college campuses. And it does provide a decent secular education. Yes, undergraduates are required to take 14 hours of religion classes to graduate. But these religion classes are at a PE level of intellectual intensity. Seriously. When it comes to the substance of their specific beliefs, the typical "faithful" Mormon is a lot like a traditional Democrat or Republican who votes the party line without inquiring too deeply into the character or precise ideological positions of the various candidates.

[JewishAtheist]

A big majority of Republicans (somewhere around 2/3s if I remember correctly) disbelieve in evolution, so your argument doesn't make any sense w/r/t the primary.

"down low" was a poor choice of words. Carter only mouthed his religion as a reflection of his character (e.g. sinning in him mind for the Playboy article).

What I meant to contrast was today's conservative Christians trying to bring their religion into the public sphere: prayer back in school, ten commands displayed in the courthouse, changing class cirricula to give equal time to creationists, gov't funded faith-based organizations, etc. These were definately not liberal Carter's main public policy issues.

[Bill]

I’ve worked with Mormon businessmen for years and, after reading their texts, have declined the invitations.

That being said, their community is impressive. They have never gone back on a deal with me. When they have concerns with any part of your work, they communicate their concerns clearly and the problem gets fixed at the personal level. The Mormon Church stresses personal independence, ethical behavior, and strong families.

I could not be a Mormon because the writings don’t make sense to me. But I would be very comfortable with a Mormon president.

[tommy]

I suspect that Mitt Romney believes that the Book of Mormon is the literal word of God

I don't. As an example, the Mormon establishment takes a hard line on abortion. Romney, as governor of Massachusetts, could hardly have been called a rabid pro-lifer.

[tommy]

Probably for the same reason my wife (who divorced 2 husbands before she and I got married) does: it's how she was brought up and she finds comfort in the rituals. I happen to think that the Church, at least as it exists here in Southern California, is basically an organized criminal enterprise, but that's a debate for a different time.

I'm of Catholic extraction and I agree. The pro-illegal-immigrant, child molesting Catholic Church sucks, but I can also understand why many people enjoy the rituals and the sense of community.

(why else would he send all five of his sons to BYU to be indoctrinated to that effect?)

Why would someone send their children to Harvard to be indoctrinated? Thats a more serious proposition.....

[slwerner]

Bill - "But I would be very comfortable with a Mormon president."

Bill,

I believe your points are very well made. I’m not a particularly big fan of any of the Republican candidates, but one thing that does impress me is Romney’s successful business background. He hasn’t impressed me with the substance of what he’s said, but since none of the candidates from either major party are going to do anything good for me in the way of policy, I believe I could be happy with a good national CEO – especially if tougher economic times are ahead. A level business-mind head is far preferable to a reactionary “government give-a-ways are the answer” one.

And, in another vein, the “draft Newt” thread got me to thinking what’s wrong with Newt as a presidential candidate. Beside that facts that he’s too smart, and too honest to be widely accepted (let alone liked), he’s just too (and I hate to say it, shallow as it seems) FAT! He just doesn’t look presidential at all. He’d be better suited running for Pillsbury Doughboy. I like a lot of what he says, but I know that people, women especially are not going to be willing to vote for him.

On the other hand, as a straight-male, I can say that Romney is a handsome guy – easily the best looking of the Republican side. And, whether they will admit to it or not, women have been shown to go for good-looking men in elections. Obama would be a good contender, but it looks like he’s toast – just as soon as he wins So. Carolina (see Dick Morris’ column for an explanation http://www.townhall.com/Columnists/DickMorrisandEileenMcGann/2008/01/23/theres_a_method_to_crafty_bills_madness).

Hillary is certainly not an attractive woman, but she is still a woman; and, as such, she will get the majority of women’s votes by default. So, the best bet the Repubs will have in making inroads into the undecided women vote will be the best looking guy they can put forward. Romney looks like he can fill that bill.

And, what’s more, with Hillary having had to move to the left to take on Obama, a center-right guy like Romney is in a pretty competitive position with the overall electorate.

Just my two cents.

[slwerner]

Sorry, the URL I just posted to Dick Morris' column seems to have bee clipped.

http://www.townhall.com/Columnists/DickMorrisandEileenMcGann/2008/01/23/theres_a_method_to_crafty_bills_madness

[slwerner]

Oops! same thing happened again. Well, Morris' column can also be found here (perhaps this link will post intact):

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2008/01/how_clinton_will_win_the_nomin.html

[Turambar]

here:

"How Clinton Will Win The Nomination By Losing South Carolina

[icr]

I think you're right. Clinton got a little chubby from time to time, but the last obviously FAT President was William Howard Taft.

[Eugene]

"The Mormon establishment takes a hard line on abortion." No, it doesn't. Or rather, it does only to the extent that it employs a good deal of spin to hide the fact that theologically, the Mormon position on abortion is very mainstream, and quite apart from the Catholic/Evangelical view. Remember that Orrin Hatch is a longtime stem cell research supporter. A good summation of the doctrinal issues involved can be found here.

[tommy]

No, it doesn't. Or rather, it does only to the extent that it employs a good deal of spin to hide the fact that theologically, the Mormon position on abortion is very mainstream, and quite apart from the Catholic/Evangelical view. Remember that Orrin Hatch is a longtime stem cell research supporter. A good summation of the doctrinal issues involved can be found here.

The Church opposes abortion except in such cases where the mother's health is threatened or rape or incest is involved. The only other exception is if the fetus has such severe defects that will not survive beyond birth. The Church's reasoning may be different than that of evangelical Christians - and even many evangelical Christians don't really oppose abortion under the former two circumstances - but the result is the same. As governor of Massachusetts, this was clearly not Romney's position.

Here is a critical Catholic view of the Mormon stance on abortion:

Didn’t you assume Mormons were pro-life? That’s certainly the image their church attempts to broadcast, and most Mormons, in fact, mistakenly believe their church opposes abortion and regards it as an objective evil. But not so.

Indeed, the Mormon church accepts abortion for a number of reasons. The Church Handbook of Instructions, approved in September, 1998, states that abortion may be performed in the following circumstances: pregnancy resulting from rape or incest; a competent physician says the life or health of the mother is in serious jeopardy; or a competent physician says that the "fetus" has severe defects that will not allow the "baby" to survive beyond birth. In any case, the persons responsible must first consult with their church leader and receive God’s approval in prayer (156).

This same Handbook, the official policies of the Mormon church to be followed by all local church leaders throughout the world, also claims: "It is a fact that a child has life before birth. However, there is no direct revelation on when the spirit enters the body" (156). Previous teachings by former Mormon prophets referred to the unborn child as "a child," "a baby," a "human being," and decried abortion as "killing," "a grievous sin," "a damnable practice." Spencer W. Kimball, the prophet who died in 1985, taught, "We have repeatedly affirmed the position of the church in unalterably opposing all abortions" (Teachings of Spencer W. Kimball, 189).

It appears that this "unalterable" position, constantly "affirmed," is just another in a series of doctrinal and moral teachings that Mormons have reworded, reworked, rescinded, or reneged—though never officially renounced. Such is the quality of the Mormon belief in "continuing revelation." Don’t expect dogmatic or ethical consistency. Rather, look for expediency and conformity with "the times."

A further statement in the Handbook says: "The church has not favored or opposed legislative proposals or public demonstrations concerning abortion (156)." While the Mormon prophet claims to speak the mind and will of God, he can neither figure out when the unborn child becomes human or if it is God’s desire that we protect the unborn unconditionally.

That might sound pretty pro-choice to you and some staunch Catholics and evangelicals, but it doesn't to me. If Romney was a hardcore Mormon and not just a slick politician, then it would be conceivable that he would not legislatively oppose abortion, but I don't think he would be making token donations in public to Planned Parenthood.

[Joe]

Huckabee isn't getting support from beltway conservatives because he isn't a conservative! He's an honest to God, big government, high taxation liberal. He's also corrupt as hell on top of that, which makes him even more of a hypocrite.

[Eugene]

Although buying alcohol stronger than 3.2 percent beer is certainly annoying, there are no "dry counties" in Utah. Utah has few de facto blue laws. Even "hardcore" Mormons (consider the Marriotts) can be a pragmatic lot. A few even believe in the separation of church and state. And not a few are perfectly capable of separating the intensity of their religious beliefs from the desire to make a buck or get elected. But that's been true for as long as organized religion has existed.

[tommy]

And not a few are perfectly capable of separating the intensity of their religious beliefs from the desire to make a buck or get elected. But that's been true for as long as organized religion has existed.

Certainly true.

[madeline murray o'hare]

why else would he send all five of his sons to BYU to be indoctrinated to that effect?

Because it is the best place to find and marry a smart Mormon girl.