[For political junkies only]
Who won tonight?
On average thousands of Americans will have died tonight. It is to be hoped that many of them had won their race and can now claim the victor’s crown.
Whether Romney or Huckabee or Thompson or McCain has won the Iowa caucus (as I write this the caucus has yet to begin), they and we have a more important race to run. Hopefully it doesn’t end in 2008, but whenever it ends, it is the race of a lifetime. Nothing as transitory as a few years of leadership of a political entity on a portion of just one world is at stake. Thrones and dominions and powers and a seat at the right hand of God is at stake.
We are all citizens of our respective nations, and as citizens we have duties that include fully-informed voting and even running for office. But transit gloria mundi.
I have fought a good fight, I have finished my course, I have kept the faith:
Henceforth there is laid up for me a crown of righteousness, which the Lord, the righteous judge, shall give me at that day: and not to me only, but unto all them also that love his appearing.
And see that all these things are done in wisdom and order; for it is not requisite that a man should run faster than he has strength. And again, it is expedient that he should be diligent, that thereby he might win the prize . . . .
Brethren, shall we not go on in so great a cause? Go forward and not backward. Courage, brethren; and on, on to the victory!
P.S. Don’t think I’m trying to nag you, if you’re a political junkie. I am my own intended audience.
Mike Huckabee and Barack Obama have won Iowa
Cripes, Dan, did you even read the post?
Perhaps the funniest first two comments in the history of the bloggernacle.
Nice post, Adam.
Did you guys see the NBC coverage??? I was laughing at the NORAD room. Seriously, it reminded me of WarGames with that HUUUUGGGGGEEEE screen and then hundreds of various very serious and busy persons at hundreds of computer stations. I don’t think they put that much effort in when the war started!!!
Nothing as transitory as a few years of leadership of a political entity on a portion of just one world is at stake.
Amen.
Thank you, Adam. I am looking for reasons not to believe my own arguments right now, and barring that reasons not to worry too much about it.
I’ll give an amen to everything Adam said in this post, including comment #2. Very well said.
Yes Adam, I did read your post.
“Whether Romney or Huckabee or Thompson or McCain has won the Iowa caucus (as I write this the caucus has yet to begin), they and we have a more important race to run.”
What about the Democrats? Have they already finished the (more important) race or where they disqualified?
I know you wrote this before the caucus results were coming in, but you could have titled it, “Consolations of a Romney Supporter”. I’m half-joking. There are far worse thoughts to think on the night one’s man (or woman) loses an election. Or wins.
This “life as race to heaven” idea is great. I agree completely. We should all pause for a moment to think about what’s really important in life.
Having done that, let me respond to Nate’s #6. Quoting from
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/01/03/schneider-how-huckabee-won/
I read:
“Mike Huckabee’s victory in Iowa’s GOP caucus can be largely attributed to his overwhelming support among evangelical voters and women, our entrance polling shows.
Evangelicals constituted the majority of Republican caucus goers (60 percent), and our entrance polling shows Huckabee won 45 percent of that group. Mitt Romney, who has heavily courted social conservatives only drew 19 percent of those voters.”
At nytimes.com, I get the following:
Overall for Huckabee: 34
Overall for Romney: 25
Doing a bit of math, I can estimate
Evangelical for Huckabee: 27% of total (45% of evangelicals)
Evangelical for Romney: 11.4% of total (19% of evangelicals)
Non-evangelical for Huckabee: 7% of total (17.5 % of non-evangelicals)
Non-evangelical for Romney: 13.6% of total (34% of non-evangelicals)
At first glance, people will freak out, but there’s really nothing shocking here. No evidence of widespread anti-Mormonism. Just that, when choosing among candidates with fairly similarly views, people have a slight tendency to trust their co-religionists a little more than people strongly attached to different religions. Mormons will fret (the Iowa evangelicals hate us) and evangelicals will fret (the Iowa non-evangelicals hate us), but this kind of thinking is hysterical. We can all fret that the religious prejudice of the electorate dooms Mormons to win the presidency less often than the one-election-in-fifty that our population size would predict, but we’ve yet to accumulate much evidence of that. (For most of U.S. history, our fraction of the population has been a lot less than 1/50.) And of course, we can fret that, as the prediction markets (see intrade.com) seem to indicate, Romney’s Iowa loss has hurt his overall chances a good deal.
But even if a Mormon can’t win the presidency, we still have the greatest snow on earth. And a great university. And a really nicely located temple in Manhattan. And Harry Reid. And people like Adam Greenwood who keep us focused on the things that really matter.
Ask not whether a Mormon can win the presidency. Ask whether a Mormon can win on Jeopardy.
This was hard to swallow. Romney is so much more talented than Huckabee.
But let’s not forget the significance of an African-American winning the Democratic Caucus tonight. Barack Obama’s victory tonight is refreshing in its own right. African Americans make up 12% of the United States population. By Timer’s logic in (10) above, blacks should win every 10th election.
The most talented people usually don’t get elected. We forget that it’s not the large city/state cognoscenti who pick presidents. It’s people in Iowa and New Hampshire and South Carolina and Wyoming.
John McCain won. He may have placed fourth but he\’s leading nationally among Republicans and he\’s tied with Mitt Romney in his own backyard. If McCain wins NH then Romney is out and if Thompson drops out, he\’ll most likely endorse his long time friend McCain.
Nice post, Adam. I just wish I’d used the word “cripes” in a recent blog.
If it comes down to a choice between Obama and Huckabee, I may have to vote Democrat. I’m only saying this publicly because I know my bishop doesn’t read the blogs.
I agree that the numbers we’ve seen don’t support the claim that Romney lost because of anti-Mormonism.
CNN reports that Huckabee won 46% of the evangelical vote, Romney 19%. I think it’s safe to assume Romney did much better among Mormons than Huckabee did among evangelicals. Romney probably got 70-90% of the Mormon GOP vote.
Respondents who said the candidate’s “religious views” mattered “a great deal” broke for Huckabee 56% to 11%, but unfortunately they don’t give the breakout on the “religious views mattered” question. So we don’t know how many people said religious views matter. The anti-Mormon vote would be in that 56-11% gap (and the gap in the “religious views mattered somewhat” group CNN didn’t report), but of course not all of that gap would be anti-Mormon — some of it would be that evangelicals simply like, identify, and understand Huckabee’s religious views, and other things being equal, voters prefer the familiar. In this sense being Mormon is a bigger obstacle than being black or female — voters are more familiar with blacks and females and don’t find being black or female strange.
A Jehovah’s Witness would face the same issues running for Utah governor. Identity and unfamiliarity would be larger obstacles than would religious discrimination. Then imagine the JW’s challenge among the San Pete County GOP (Utah’s Iowa equivalent) if he had been a pro-choice mayor of Salt Lake (Utah’s Massachusetts equivalent), and was on record claiming to better support gay rights than Rocky Anderson (Utah’s Teddy Kennedy equivalent). Placing second in a crowded field of respectable candidates would be a gleeming silver medal.
The strongest indication that Romney didn’t lose because of anti-Mormonism: women preferred Huckabee 41% to 24%, but men chose Romney 27% to 26%. It’s unlikely that anti-Mormon sentiment accounts for that gender gap. Of course, Romney would presumably have done even better had his Mormonism not been an issue at all, but the fact that he won the male vote despite it shows it’s not insurmountable.
Thank you for this post Adam. Even if a Mormon can’t be President of the United States because of his religion (which seems a logical conclusion based on all that has been said by all sides — the Left, the Right, the Evangelicals, the commentators — but which as Matt points out cannot be statistically quantified with the information currently known), Mormons have to live somewhere. Wherever Mormons live, hopefully they will always be examples of living according to the example and commandments of Jesus Christ and will enrich their communities through community service, compassion for the poor and suffering, and real and sincere efforts at peacemaking.
America is the only place where a Mormon could conceivably attain such a high office. Let’s all just retain that hope and press forward with our lives. If a Mormon cannot be elected President because of his or her religion, then awareness of such a glass ceiling will only actually affect our lives in a very minimal way. People have been living as second-class citizens in many societies throughout the entire history of time and can and do lead productive, fulfilling lives as such. We can and should continue to do the same as Latter-day Saints, whether or not conventional wisdom comes to hold that there is a “rule” about Mormons and the Presidency, as theorized by Nate in his SFGate column.
One positive outcome might be a shifting of alliances in the political landscape. The Iowa caucus polls seem to show that Evangelical Christian GOP voters will not choose a Mormon even if the alternative is a person likely more incomptetent than George W. Bush, as long as that person is an Evangelical Christian. Latter-day Saints might grow weary of throwing in their lot with such bedfellows.
“Thrones and dominions and powers and a seat at the right hand of God is at stake.” Certainly that is our ultimate goal. But along the way we have to make some less lofty personal choices. In 1978, the LDS Church tooks steps to welcome those of African decent in to the full fellowshiop of the church. Now just 30 years later, it looks like the American voter might be following suit. Congratulations Mr. Obama!
john f, it may be interesting to see if Romney doesn’t get the Republican nomination, then how many more Mormons may vote Democratic than in past years. I agree that this whole episode may have turned some unthinking Mo-Republicans into more conscious voters, and perhaps therefore into independents & Democrats.
jeans, I think that most mormons republicans could fairly easily vote for a mcCain or a Guiliani (certainly I could on the former, and with hesitation on the latter). It’s only if it’s Huckabee that I think any mormon republicans would seriously hesistate. And even then, I think the effect would most likely be non-voting, rather than voting for, say, Hilary.
jeans,
Conservative Mormons have it so ingrained in their mindset that Democrats and liberals are worse than commies that they would rather vote for the anti-Mormon conservative bigot than come over to what they would consider the Dark Side.
Oh, no, that’s not true at least for this conservative Mormon. I would vote happily for Hillary or Obama over Huckabee, any day.
Dan, the only thing conservative mormons dislike more than liberals are anti-mormons. Look for a blue Utah if Huckabee gets the rest of the nation.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/22493192/
“More than eight in 10 Huckabee supporters said they are born again or evangelical Christians, compared to less than half of Romney’s. Nearly two-thirds of Huckabee backers also said it was very important that their candidate share their religious beliefs, compared to about one in five of Romney’s.”
This means that of the roughly 40,000 votes cast for Huckabee, we have 27,000 for whom religion was an issue. So we now know that there are 27,000 Iowan religious tribalists with enough fervor to get them to turn out for a caucus and vote for a baptist minister. And there are probably some of the 27,000 who are as much anti-Mormon as pro-evangelical.
But considering that the population of Iowa is about 3 million, this is not such a huge number…
I’ll ignore the post too and make a political comment. As a moderate Republican, if the election was today between Obama and Huckabee, I would cross party lines and vote Democrat. I can’t see myself voting for Guiliani under any circumstances. I would rather see Clinton back in the White House.
I agree with Dan that most conservative Mormon Republicans would not cross party lines, but it could depend on the “blue” ticket. Would two moderate Democrats trump an Evangelical Republican ticket?
#18: “….a Mormon can’t be President of the United States because of his religion. I disagree. For me, Romney has not shown he is more than he is Mormon. I think Hillery has shown she is more than a woman, and Obama that he is more than a black. Huckabee won religious Iowa, he must now show he is more than a Pastor.
Thanks for the reminder, Adam.
On my “detestedness” scale, Huckabee and Clinton run neck and neck, with Edwards a close third.
But, if any of them wins, I can re-read Adam’s post, take two aspirin and wake up in four (or eight) years, and life will go on–and that more important race remains to be finished.
“Latter-day Saints might grow weary of throwing in their lot with such bedfellows.” John F.
Indeed. I went to sleep last night a fairly committed Republican and woke up this morning in bed with Huckabee and Chuck Norris. One of the reasons I avoid alcohol is to avoid such blunders.
Great post AG! Since I’ll never run for public office, I hope to win the other race anyway! :-)
Just curious…. Has anyone ever looked into what the percentages are of Mormon Republicans versus Mormon Democrats?
Can I just say how little I care for any of the candidates – especially on the Republican side?
Ugh.
I really, really dislike Clinton but out of everyone she’s almost the person I hope wins. Edwards and Obama are going to turn Bush’s big mess into an even bigger mess. This is like going from Nixon to Carter. Ugh.
#18
Even if a Mormon can’t be President of the United States because of his religion…
This should be rephrased to “even if a Mormon can’t be a Republican President of the United States.” If John Edwards (or almost any other Democrat) were a Mormon, it would be a much smaller issue.
“Who won tonight?”
Not the American people.
“I went to sleep last night a fairly committed Republican and woke up this morning in bed with Huckabee and Chuck Norris. One of the reasons I avoid alcohol is to avoid such blunders.”
That is an epic comment. Seriously, I need to wipe postum from my computer monitor.
The percentage of anti-Mormon votes need not be exorbidantly large nor comprise a majority of any demographically significant voting bloc in order to constitute a decisive blow to the prospect of a Mormon being elected president by conservative Christians.
No worries, guys.
All governments and politicians are nothing more than dust.
Isaiah 40.
Iowa is one of the least Mormon states in the U.S., and very few people there would know Mormons in their daily interactions, versus other states in the West like California where about a third of the state’s residents know a Mormon, although I can’t remember the survey where I read that. I agree that it was Iowan’s unfamiliarity with a rootless (come on, where is Mitt from anyway, Michigan, Massachusetts, Utah, the Mormon colonies in Mexico?) Mormon that led them to vote for the guy who made Arkansas friendlier to the Walton family when Clinton headed for Washington, who by the way, they will be sure of seeing in heaven right next to them.
The breakout of the republican results was interesting. Eastern Iowa which is heavily catholic also went heavily for Romney. The bulk of the western counties along the Missouri River also went for Romney. There were a couple of interior counties where Romney squeaked by. The most interesting of those was Decatur County where the precincts in Lamoni carried the day for Mitt. Lamoni is the home of Graceland University, the flagship school of the Community of Christ church.
Uh, Matt Evans, Jehovah’s Witness was probably not a good pick for the religion of your hypothetical gubernatorial candidate. ‘Twoulnd’t be much of a Jehovah’s Witness running for political office.
John Mansfield – Indeed. Even Dwight Eisenhower ditched his JW upbringing before running for president :)
I will not vote for Huckabee based on his LDS bashing.
Look for a John McCain rebound after he wins New Hampshire next week. He could very well be the nominee after all.
I think he will play much better in a general election then either Romney or Huckabee. Both of whom I see as losers in the G. Election. I think Huckabee would go down in flames like 58-42
Obama looks good for now in GE head to heads agains the Repubs. I think he may have a glass jaw like Dukakis did in 1988 though for the following reasons:
1. Experience
2. Would be the most liberal nominee in history
3. favors DL’s for Illegals. I saw him tell Wolf Blitzer he favored DL’s for illegals in a CNN debate. Its poison in a general election. Its why HRC backpedaled so fast on the issue
4. Death Penalty. Opposed. Would he sign a federal death warrant for Osama Bin Laden? If asked how would he answer if the nominee
Marc–probably a lot earlier than that–say, before he entered West Point, since all the flag saluting in the army may not have sat well with JW principles.
I read Dwight E’s Autobiography a few years ago. His mom was a committed JW but he was not active in it from his teenage years.
Adam,
We all know that a more important race is out there, but it’s a marathon, not a 100 meter dash. Along the way, we get this little sprints to the summit of the next hill, to the next corner, and unfortunately, we all live in this world and this country where races like the one that really started last night do take on some transient importance.
Most of you know that I already lean democratic, but I’ll just toss out a couple of comments. First, in red-state Iowa, you had twice as many people turn out to the Democratic caucuses than the Republicans. I heard one political commentator on NPR mention that nobody in the Republican party is particularly happy with the slate of candidates, and that the Democrats had too many good ones. I’ll lament the fact that two of the best, Chris Dodd and Joe Biden, couldn’t muster enough support to get even 1% of the vote, and have now bowed out. The big surprise for me is that Clinton took third, edged out of second place by Edwards. Obama seems to be channeling the charisma of a Bobby Kennedy, and a strong showing in New Hampshire, and either Florida or South Carolina, could propel him to the nomination.
Huckabee, IMO, will not do well in New Hampshire, and it’s make or break time for Romney, as he won’t best Huckabee in South Carolina, and probably not Florida. Giuliani has got to start making an impact soon, and McCain also needs to do well immediately. Thompsen in just a matter of time before he’s out, perhaps next week.
I think in three to four weeks, we’ll have a pretty good idea on the Democratic side, but the Republican race could surprise everyone, and go longer than expected.
At least if Romney loses, he can take up the next leg of his race as a mission president, perhaps the Washington DC mission?
“Would be the most liberal nominee in history”
I’m trying to figure out what you could possibly mean by this.
A “federal death warrant” for AbL? We don’t have “federal death warrants” in this country because we don’t sentence people to death before fairly trying them–not because we love criminals or terrorists or Nazis, but because being free is more important than making political opponents look bad. Did GWB sign a “federal death warrant” for ObL? Did Roosevelt for Hitler? Obama is a professor of constitutional law. If asked about a “federal death warrant” I’d hope he’d answer by making obvious just how stupid and insipid a question it is.
“Senator Obama, congratulations on the nomination. But I have a tough question for you: if elected president would you use a hyper-death-ray to destroy international badness?”
I was simply trying to make the point that its not good politics to be opposed to the death penalty.
The question would actually be phrased like this.
If captured and convicted would you support the death penalty for OBL? Obama would probably say No based on his past comments and voting record. Would be very damaging in a general election as demonstrated by Dukakis and the question about his wife and Bill C going back to Arkansas to oversee an execution during the 1992 election
Of course he could always say “No, I think that letting the nutball off far too easilty, Life in an American prison would be much more insufferable.” and I think any “political suicide” would be firmly and neatly avoided.
I’m still trying to figure out who won the Iowa caucuses. Can somebody please help me? Adam does not answer this in his post.
BBell – So this is not really in keeping with Adam’s original post, but I couldn’t help just letting your pretty unjustifiable comment go answered. Regardless of whether one supports Obama’s candidacy or not, it’s easy to see that your characterization of Obama as the “most liberal” candidate ever is baseless. Let’s just look quick at a handful of issues on the table. On trade, Obama’s record is pretty moderate (he voting for the recent Peru FTA (note that Edwards did not)). On the war in Iraq, while it’s clear he opposed the decision to go to war (which, according to virtually ever poll out there most Americans do now), he’s pretty moderate on where we need to go from here. He opposes a pull-out leaving no residual force and has only said that, as president, he would seek to pull all “combat” troops out within 18 months, something we may be on pace to do anyway. This could leave upwards of 70,000 troops in Iraq to aid the country. In a debate he also declined to say that he would have all American troops out of Iraq by 2013 (note that the far left is NOT happy with him on his Iraq proposals). On faith in the public square, Obama, again, is pretty moderate. Openly advocating for a place for faith in the public square. On gay marriage, Obama opposes gay marriage, but supports civil unions. Again, a fairly moderate position. He opposes the death penalty, but is that THAT liberal? The Catholic Church opposes the death penalty, and it is certainly not seen as some bastion of liberalism. There’s not space to go through each and every issue and there are certain to be some where he may be seen as liberal, but I think he’s proven himself as someone open to compromise and seeking middle-ground. Writing him off as blithely as you have does not do justice to the candidate or the issues.
Proof is in the pudding.
His ratings by the interest groups and his voting records show he is pretty far left. Even farther left then Hillary.
Obama first
http://www.vote-smart.org/issue_rating_category.php?can_id=BS030017
Clinton second
http://www.vote-smart.org/issue_rating_category.php?can_id=55463
I do think he is electable though based on his ability to communicate and his sheer likeability. In order to beat him the Repubs would have to use his voting record and stands on the issues like how Bush senior beat Dukakis
Still, Marc, if the standard for measuring liberalism is the desire not to summarily execute people everybody hate, you have to admit that bbell has a point.
http://www.vote-smart.org/issue_rating_detail.php?r_id=3655
Here compare HRC and Obama on this compsite liberal score
My feeling, after looking through them all, was that Edwards was more liberal than Obama.
There are serious theoretical difficulties in making that sort of claim based off project vote smart ratings. It divorces all context from any vote and fails to address the nuance in any issue. Obama clearly doesn’t have as long of a federal legislative voting record as Clinton or most other candidates who were legislators and comparing state legislative voting records with federal ones is often comparing apples to oranges. Moreover, assessing Obama’s “liberalness” in this way completely ignores his current presidential platform. In short, it fails.
That aside, I think you underestimate Obama’s appeal to independents and moderate Republicans. The disparity in voter turnout between the Republican and Democratic caucuses in Iowa is simply staggering. Something along the lines of 239,000 to 115,000. If you think Obama will be a push-over against any of the potential Republican nominees, I think you’ve failed to appreciate what he represents. That’s not to say he doesn’t have his weaknesses as a candidate, but every candidate in the field has their own Achilles heels and Obama is as well-positioned as any of them to succeed in a general election.
If the standard is whose rhetoric is more intent on stirring up class hatred, Edwards wins the prize of being most “liberal.” As to how they would actually govern, I’m not sure there is much difference between Hillary, Edwards and Obama. Can anybody imagine that one of them would name more liberal Supreme Court nominees than the other, for example?
Geoff – What constitutes a “liberal” Supreme Court Justice? By historical measures, Bill Clinton appointed fairly moderate minimalist judges in Ginsburg and Breyer. There certainly aren’t any William Brennan’s or Thurgood Marshall’s on the Court today. Or do you not discern any difference.
And Geoff, it’s kind of rude to us to imply that liberalism = class hatred. Of course, if you get to do that, I can say, in all honesty and good faith, that conservativism = xenophobia, and that Tancredo was the most conservative of candidates. I’d be just as right as you are.
I think that Iowans have a history of turning out in greater numbers for the Democratic caucuses. If someone can find the data on that, it may take some wind from the sails of the “incredible how they loved those three guys” argument.
As to bbell’s reference to Obama’s supporting “DLs for illegals”. I suppose this refers to the stupidity of our state laws in promoting driving by unlicensed, uninsured drivers. I don’t support that, and I’m surprised at all the people who do.
Marc,
Most conservatives I know talk all about “strict constructionism” and “judicial deference” and “originalism” — all terms that seem to define proper conservative constitutionalism in terms of process. But then they castigate “liberal” justices only in terms of the policy implications of the rulings they make. Criticizing outcomes as “activist” is logically absurd. Most conservatives just want conservative activists on the court — which is why they’re so gleefully supportive of Scalia and Thomas, who overrule state and federal legislation about 50% more often than either Ginsberg or Breyer. When Rehnquist died, the court lost its last true conservative, and when Bush nominated Alito over, say, Michael McConnell, the party showed its true colors when it comes to judicial activism.
1) [Feigned shock] You’re for drivers licenses for illegals Mark?! You must be a liberal [See BBell above].
2) Past voter turnout doesn’t take the wind from the sails at all. Previous record for Democrats was 125,000, and the previous record for Republicans was 115,000.
“Turnout was extremely high for Democrats, less so for Republicans. Early estimates indicated that 230,000 Iowans participated in the Democratic caucuses, nearly double the previous record of 125,000 in 2004. The high turnout clearly worked to Obama’s benefit. Republican turnout looked to be about 115,000. While that was only half the Democratic number, it was higher than anticipated and matched the record set in 1980.” (Seattle Times)
The 2004 GOP Iowa Caucus is kind of irrelevant because Bush was unopposed, but in 2000 GOP turnout was 87,000 (CNN) while turnout for the Democratic caucus was only 60,000 or so (Wash Post).
Whoa, guys! I really appreciate the reminder that this post provides, and I think we would be better served to leave political arguments for other fora. Especially when we get into the very subjective and often unenlightening subjects of “judicial activism” and liberalism vs. conservatism.
After all, there are much more important races to be run.
As a fellow political junkie, we’re just hoping Adam will be understanding about our flagrant thread-jack.
#55: Yes, Edwards has made it clear: He is against the 1% Class, and favors the 99% Class. It should be a short war if he can get it stirred up.
ADam, thanks for the reminder about priorities.
.
Here’s a passage from John Taylor that eliminated my political radicalism when I first read it at the beginning of my mission back in 1971:
.
It is altogether an infatuation to think that a change in government will mend the circumstances, or increase the resources, when the whole world is groaning under corruption. If there are twenty men who have twenty pounds of bread to divide amongst them, it matters but little whether it is divided by three, ten, or the whole, it will not increase the amount. I grant, however, that there are flagrant abuses, of which we have mentioned some, associated with all kinds of governments, and many things to be complained of justly; but they arise from the wickedness of man, and the corrupt and artificial state of society. Do away with one set of rulers, and you have only the same materials to make another of; and if ever so honestly disposed, they are surrounded with such a train of circumstances, over which they have no control, that they cannot mend them.
.
There is frequently much excitement on this subject; and many people ignorant of these things, are led to suppose that their resources will be increased, and their circumstances bettered; but when they find, after much contention, struggling, and bloodshed, that it does not rain bread, cheese, and clothing; that it is only a change of men, papers, and parchment, chagrin and disappointment naturally follow. There is much that is good, and much that is bad in all governments; and I am not seeking here to portray a perfect government, but to show some of the evils associated with them, and the utter incompetency of all the plans of men to restore a perfect government; and as all their plans have failed, so they will fail, for it is the work of God, and not of man. The moral agency of man without God, has had its full development; his weakness, wickedness, and corruption, have placed the world where it is: he can see as in a glass his incompetency, and folly, and nothing but the power of God can restore it.
.
[...]
.
There are very many philanthropists who would gladly ameliorate the condition of men, and of the world, if they knew how. But the means employed are not commensurate with the end; every grade of society is vitiated and corrupt. “The whole head is sick, and the whole heart faint.” Our systems, our policy, our legislation, our education, and philosophy, are all wrong, neither can we be particularly blamed, for these evils have been the growth of ages. Our fathers have left God, his guidance, control, and support, and we have been left to ourselves; and our present position is a manifest proof of our incompetency to govern; and our past failures make it evident, that any future effort, with the same means, would be as useless. The world is diseased, and it requires a world’s remedy.
.
– “The Government of God,” Ch 3
I think the talk about Huckabee being anti-Mormon is way overblown, and small-minded. There’s a lot more to this race than how Mormons come out, and Huckabee has made a real effort to avoid using Romney’s religion against him. Considering the culture he is coming from, and speaking to, and how many journalists are trying to make Romney’s religion the issue it shouldn’t be, Huckabee is being a real gentleman and should be commended.
#65: Well said.
65 and 66.
Huckabee: “Don’t Mormons believe that Jesus and Satan are brothers?”
Yeah, a real gentleman.
My vote doesn’t count for much here in NY, but if Huckabee is the Republican nominee I will actively work against his election.
Ben H and Bob, I am only responding to the claim that Huckabee is being a “real gentleman”. Aside from the obvious examples (the “brother” comment, the “I’m too Christian to run my ad, but I’ll give you reporters each a copy of it” press conference, etc.), visit his official website some time. There are literally hundreds (at least) of extremely anti-Mormon comments on it that are left unchallenged and unmoderated and active – and his is the only example of that. Just about every speech he blatantly positions himself against Romney as “the Christian candidate”. His top two campaign managers have said, in essence, that they would like to beat up Romney. A real gentleman perhaps in that he doesn’t overtly spout anti-Mormon vitriol, but he certainly encourages it without remorse.
Here’s the big question. If Huckabee gets the nomination, how will Republican Mormon’s vote in the election? I think I would vote for Obama over Huckabee, but I’m not sure what I’d do if it was Clinton vs. Huckabee. I’d vote for McCain over either Clinton or Obama, but I wouldn’t vote for McCain’s mom. Does anyone think the Democrats have a chance of winning in Utah if Huckabee gets the nomination?
Also, is it hypocritical of me to insist Romney’s personal religious beliefs shouldn’t matter when I myself am hesitant to vote for Huckabee because of his apparent anti-Mormon beliefs? What if I agree with Huckabee on all the issues but I don’t want to reward him with my vote for having a campaign slogan of, “Vote for me, I’m not a cultist!â€
kurt, I will not vote for Huckabee primarily because I don’t like his term as governor in many, many ways – and, on top of that, I can’t stand his calculated attempt to play on anti-Mormon concerns without appearing to do so. However, if I really did agree with him politically more than any other candidate, I would swallow my religious pride and vote for him.
I am saddened that he won Iowa, but I’m not surprised. I will be shocked if he wins NH, as well as he actual nomination. I just don’t think his record can stand the scrutiny, and I don’t think his “I’m the Christian candidate” will play well in states not dominated by evangelicals. Romney actually won the non-evangelical, Christian vote pretty handily in Iowa – and the margin with Catholics was huge.
Ray,
I, unfortunately, probably have more religious pride than you, because with all the ugly religious back biting in this campaign so far, I am about ready to throw up my hands and tell the fundies they deserve to have Hillary as their next president.
#67: There was a time in America when gentlemen shot each other. He didn’t say Romney was Satan. ““Don’t Mormons believe that Jesus and Satan are brothers?â€. This ran a long time on this Blog, with no answer, but no one was call “Not a gentleman”.
#68: “….There are literally hundreds (at least) of extremely anti-Mormon comments on it”
I visited the website and saw nothing anti-Mormon on it from Huckabee. Maybe some bloggers…but who can control them?
#72 – “Maybe some bloggers…but who can control them?”
Every other candidate.
I really don’t want to keep addressing this one. We’ll just have to agree to disagree.
#73: Is Romney calling this Blog on Anti-Huckabee stuff? Where were you “no gentleman” guys when the “lady” stood up at the McCain town hall and said “How do we beat the bitch?”..and McCain got a good laugh?
Sorry this is a little off topic, but I couldn\’t help but notice a comment up near the top that read:
\”America is the only place where a Mormon could conceivably attain such a high office.\”
I\’m not so sure this is true. I am Canadian and I see no reason that a Mormon couldn\’t become Prime Minister here. Actually, I think a candidate\’s religion would be much less of an issue in my country.
And for that matter, I don\’t think it would be overly difficult for a Mormon to be elected the leader of almost any European country (except maybe for those that are heavily Catholic).
Just my opinnions obviously, not based on any science or fact.
Mike Peterson: Tony Blair and his staff presumably thought it enough of an issue that he waited until a few months after leaving office, to leave the Church of England. I’m pretty sure that the list of countries where you can win top office while being part of a non-dominant religious group is quite small, and dominated by English-speaking former British colonies. And it’s largely an untested proposition: that is, I think I can get most Australians and Canadians to say it doesn’t matter, but they haven’t elected many (if any) non-Protestant Prime Ministers/Presidents, and the ones they have have all been Catholic: Australia’s current PM is a formerly Catholic Anglican, the current PM of Canada “periodically” attends a church affiliated with the “evangelical Christian and Missionary Alliance.” Admittedly, New Zealand’s current PM has declared herself an “agnostic,” but I suspect that plays better than a “weird” religion would (and her social policies look like any typical “liberal” Protestant’s.) Sort of like how Americans in the late 18th century were okay with Unitarians and Deists, so long as they behaved in exactly the same ways as Presbyterians and Methodists. Admittedly part of the problem in Europe is that religion codes to ethnicity: there’s a minor ruckus in Northern Ireland right now about employment statistics that are counting Polish Catholic immigrants in the same category as Irish Catholics, for purposes of tracking discrimination. Sinn Féin types are annoyed.
Semi-on-topic-content warning: In my opinion, people like this man have “won” far better than anyone did in the Iowa caucuses.
Mike # 75, you were responding to me and I can say with a fairly high degree of confidence (almost absolute certainty, actually) that a Mormon could never be elected to the highest political office in any European country. I would be absolutely stunned if it happened. These countries are indeed more open about some social issues but religious diversity/pluralism is not one of them and particularly open acceptance of minority religions, most of which they officially designate as “cults” or “new religious movements” (which are actually synonyms even though the latter sounds more benign) on government watch lists.
You might have a point with Canada, and I think it might be conceivable in Australia and New Zealand. (I just don’t know Canada, Australia, or New Zealand like I know Europe.)
#77: John, so do you see this as a “weakness” (could not think of a different word) in Secular Elections..not wanting some one too “churchy”, or at least someone who is church passive? Or are they correct in trying to keep religion out of their secular governments?
Sarah and John,
Very good points. Having never been to Europe myself, it was interesting to hear your thoughts on the topic. I served my mission in Japan and I do doubt that a Mormon, or even a Christian for that matter, could become the leader of any Asian country at this time.
What are your thoughts on South American politics. With the tremendous growth of the church there and the apparent acceptance of it, do you think it could be possible for a Mormon to be elected there?
Thanks for the link in #76, Sarah.
My only observation on the 50-comment threadjack is that I’d have a lot easier time voting for Huckabee than Giuliani or for folks like Clinton and Obama who support something as barbaric as partial birth abortion. I’m perfectly happy to embrace shaky, mild second-class citizen status if it helps the safety of His little ones.
Wonderful link, Sarah. I never read the posts, but I was tearing up as I read it. It fits perfectly the initial tenor of this post. Thank you; that clearly is true victory in the race of life.
For all you conservatives out there: take a look at Ron Paul. He’s fantastic. Seriously.
From what I’ve seen in our community, Ron Paul appeals to the 25-44 year old white male voter. And no one else.
re # 78: it is not about “churchiness”, it is about which church you go to. Ironically, even Huckabee would not do well in Europe because being a fundamental Christian in the American Southern Baptist sense is only one small rung higher on the ladder of deluded religious wackos than being a Mormon. Only nominal members of one of the state churches are electable in most European countries.
As to your point about the separation of church and state, I am personally a very strict separationist but nevertheless one who does not pretend to act like a person’s religion does not inform a person’s basic worldview and play a role in decision making and perspective. Since I believe religion is a force for good in people’s lives, I think it is very good that this occurs — but I am dead set against anything that could hint at a violation of the Establishment Clause or the complete institutional separation of church and state (e.g. school prayers).
I honestly think people are underestimating the Oprah factor. There are a whole lot of women who are going to vote, who usually don\’t, because Oprah wants them to vote. Women who may not typically be politically engaged. And they\’re going to vote for Obama.
#84:John, thanks for the reply. Yes, what a man/woman believes and their character count. But so does that “institutional separation”.
#85: I hope this doesn’t happen. I hope there is a whole lot of clear thinking before this vote. I hope we are better than an “Oprah factor”.
I think the real question is… are we underestimating the Chuck Norris factor…
#87: The only reason they used Chuck Norris was “Polly” from “Rocky” was busy.
“My only observation on the 50-comment threadjack is that I’d have a lot easier time voting for Huckabee than Giuliani or for folks like Clinton and Obama who support something as barbaric as partial birth abortion. I’m perfectly happy to embrace shaky, mild second-class citizen status if it helps the safety of His little ones.”
So is abortion the only issue you care about when it comes to politics, or just the one you care about the most? Because frankly I’m astonished when people make blanket statements about how they won’t vote for someone because they’re against gay marriage, or pro-abortion. How much of a chance is there that Obama, or anyone else elected this year, would have a large effect on abortion? Does Huckabee being against abortion make up for his many other faults?
Hopefully that didn’t come off as an attack, I’m genuinely curious.
So is abortion the only issue you care about when it comes to politics, or just the one you care about the most?
The latter.
Because frankly I’m astonished when people make blanket statements about how they won’t vote for someone because they’re against gay marriage, or pro-abortion.
OK. Suit yourself.
How much of a chance is there that Obama, or anyone else elected this year, would have a large effect on abortion? Does Huckabee being against abortion make up for his many other faults?
The Supreme Court is in something approaching equipoise and as many as three justices could retire in the next 8 years. The chances that the next President will affect abortion policy are greater than with most issues.