I have been troubled by the recent, wrongful allegations of religious bigotry here at Redstate, especially in conjunction with the issues of identity politics and class envy as regards Mike Huckabee's campaign.
This blog is also inspired by comments in my recent blog that sought to highlight the alienation of many Black conservative Republicans from the GOP:
Huckabee was not afraid of Tavis Smiley: The Aftermath
Let me first address the allegations of bigotry against Huckabee for speaking at a Protestant Church who's Pastor's theological beliefs differ from the theology of the Roman Catholic Church as well as the endorsement of Mitt Romney by Bob Jones whose theological beliefs consider Mormonism to be heresy.
The Definition:
One who regards or treats the members of a group (as a racial or ethnic group) with hatred and intolerance.
So bigotry is characterized by intolerance, not by disagreement. The evolution of Christianity in America is best defined by its tolerance, i.e. the free exercise of religion. There are no laws that imprison or punish non-Christians. Moreover, acts of intolerance in the public square including violence for religious reasons are overwhelmingly committed against Christians, as well as Jews and other religious people.
The existence of the Mormon Church, Roman Catholic Church and Protestant churches is due to disagreements. Each thinks they have the truth. Each proclaims same in their respective confessions. Each seeks to convert the others, not out of hate, but rather out of love.
The overwhelming majority of all religious Americans, including Evangelicals and Huckabee, would not vote for a fellow adherent whose policies oppose judeo-christian values against a non-adherent whose policies advance same, and most of those that would do not do so out of bigotry. Rather, most would do so out of concerns for peoples' souls. I don't agree with same, but I think that is the case.
Pastor Dan asks
You wrote:"...and I do think that we have some things to learn even from Huck ...
...albeit without the identity politics and class envy."Are you saying that we should not emulate the Huckster's identity politics in some ways, but that the remaining candidates are to be chastised for not appearing at a debate set up to pander to one specific race? If I understand what you just said, please show me how appearing at an Afrocentric debate is different from appearing at one designed to "reach out" to any other fraction of society. From over here, the biggest visible difference is that we've been trying to be sensitive to the black community for a much longer period of time than to the Latino community. Perhaps we've come to expect candidates for public office to behave a certain way in regard to some ethnic groups but not others. If this is the case, we may need to rethink some of our criticisms of each other.
I am on record against class envy as being rotten!
I do think that too many republicans have a knee jerk reaction to any rhetoric that appeals to the the needs and concerns of the lower and middle income. I think we must advance the fact that conservative economic policies are good for all Americans, including and especially those at the bottom of the ladder. What we must not do is advance class envy policies or demonize "Wall Street" as we do so.
I do think Huck must be condemned for that rhetoric, but I do see some signs that his actual policies might actually be good for small business.
Huck must get specific.
The best evidence and assurances for Mormons and catholics re evangelicals is the endorsement of Mitt Romney by Bob Jones.
Neil Stevens asks:
Has President Bush been afraid of terrorists when he refuses to negotiate with them? Was he afraid of Arafat?I maintain guys like Smiley are badly corrosive of our political discourse, and they have no business being granted the dignity of participating in Republican politics unless they apologize and turn a new path away from racism.
And I still think that way. If Huck benefited from working with a racist, then shame on him. If he wins the nomination for working with a racist,t hen shame on this party.
I agree that Smiley often sucks, but those in that audience do not. That many in that audience are proud of the position Tavis has achieved does not mean they can't be reached with the conservative message. In fact, wouldn't it have been nice if Fred had shown up and pointed out that Tavis achieved prominence due in no small part to conservative values and policies?
Doesn't the longing of the long-suffering Black GOP leader deserve for the GOP to come to the neighborhood he has long suffered in for our cause, come there and champion him?
More from Dan:
I share NS concerns, at least to a significant extent. My earlier reply to which you said you'd get back to me is in the same vein, i.e., when are we "reaching out" vs. "practicing identity politics" vs. "pandering" to one group or another.
Pandering is when one advocates policies that violate one's principles in order to buy the votes of others.
That we MUST not do, and I don't think even Huck did that. I abhor his class envy rhetoric and i think he has on a FEW occasions catered to a very few bigots, but overall, I think it is the media that advances the idea that identity politics is behind Huck's rise.
Huck rose due to:
1) Having a pulse, esp in debates, as compared to the rest, (See passion, vision and reaching out) on religious and mostly non-religious issues;
2) Mitt was in Iowa too long; and
3) The rest were in Iowa too little.
Huck is admired for being unashamed to take on the PC police by being very public with his faith and not being afraid to say the name of Jesus in public.
But Huck's rise is quite limited in substance and he will fall. But let's not insult his supporters as he falls by labeling them bigots.
Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
The HinzSight Report
The Minority Report
Huck is history in the Race 4 2008
"One man with courage makes a majority." - Andrew Jackson
FRED08
Recent comments