It’s time to bury the hatchet.

I promise this is my last post on the subject.

Erick Erickson over at RedState has penned what I think is an important contribution to the unfortunate intra-movement battle over James Dobson’s recent remarks on Fred Thompson. If you’ve been living under a rock for the past 48 hours, you can get up to speed on the issue here and here. I think Erick’s piece is useful as it allows the dueling forces on this issue to begin talking to each other instead of at one another. Says Erick:

Let me put it to you very plainly and you can disagree all you want and you’ll still be wrong — some people have different values and place different emphasis on things than you and me. And they, just like you and me, are entitled to their opinion. And sometimes they have bigger microphones than you or me, but they are still entitled to their opinion…

The reason Mohler, Dobson, and so many evangelicals are bigots in Hugh Hewitt’s eyes and in the eyes of others, and the reason some of you are so frustrated with Dobson today, is because Dobson is a Christian first, a conservative second, and a partisan third.

Dobson wants a Christian to be his nominee and he, like me, is really frustrated that so many of the candidates in the race are Christian in name only. And I’m sure he is also frustrated that one of the front runners is not even a Christian. Some of you, I realize, are hitting the brakes here. Yeah, yeah, I know Fred was baptized, Rudy and Sam are Catholic, etc. This goes to the heart of the problem that so many evangelicals have — there are lots of people wanting to call themselves Christians who are not actually Christ followers. “Christian” is the acceptable terminology for a secular world. Lots of people say they are, but there are actually not as many who actually, you know, follow Christ.

I’m not going to start a theological debate here, and I think Dobson can defend himself, but the key difference between a nominal Christian and a Christ following Christian, i.e. a real Christian, is that the former shows his colors by the inactive pursuit of his faith and the latter shows his colors by the active pursuit of his faith. Fred Thompson, I think Dobson is suggesting, falls into the former category. I haven’t paid attention enough to know whether Fred does or does not follow Christ, though as others have said, if that is the case it’d probably put Fred on par with Ronald Reagan.

Sure, you have the right to be angry with Dobson expressing his opinion. But a lot of the outrage I’ve heard has been directed at Dobson for not pulling for the team, whereby the team is the GOP. Folks, James Dobson is on Christ’s team. All others are incidental to that cause. You may not like it, but then again I really doubt James Dobson is too worried about your partisan outrage. And I’m right there with him, I don’t care about your outrage over James Dobson speaking faithfully about faith, but I’d still vote for Fred.

My emphasis. First, I agree with Erick that attempting to shut off a debate with cries of bigotry is sort of a cop-out. Even if one believes that bigotry exists in any given situation, a far more effective tool to defeating said bigotry is through the power of argument. This, of course, goes to the distinctly conservative notion of the free marketplace of ideas, a system that censors none due to the fact that, when all ideas are bathed in the light of reason, the wisdom or folly behind each idea will be correctly ascertained. (Or perhaps that’s a distinctly classically liberal notion, but who’s counting.)

As such, I certainly believe that James Dobson has the right to give his theological point of view, as a private citizen, on any given issue. I may disagree with that point of view. I may disagree with it vehemently. I may find it in extraordinarily poor taste to question the veracity of another’s faith. But, to put it bluntly, Dobson most certainly has the right to tell me I’m headed for the most unpleasant level of Purgatory — possibly the one with that rather large boulder that must be perpetually rolled up a ridiculously steep hill (I hate that one) — and I most certainly have the right to roll my eyes and offer to buy the fellow a beer to loosen him up a tad. That’s what freedom is all about.

Secondly, and I think this point goes more to my piece from yesterday, Erick argues that we conservatives and Republicans shouldn’t be criticizing Dobson for commentary that could harm the GOP or the conservative movement due to the fact that Dobson speaks not on behalf of the GOP or conservatism, but for his particular religious ministry. I’ll see Erick on this one, but I’ll also raise him. It’s true that Dobson’s first loyalty is to his particular religious orthodoxy. But it’s also true that the Republican Party’s primary responsibility is the election of Republican candidates. And it is further true that the conservative movement’s primary responsibility is to advance the tenets of political conservatism via the instruments of government. As such, if it is acceptable for Dobson to choose his faith over the GOP when he feels they conflict — and I think it is — then it must be equally acceptable for the GOP and conservatism to choose winning elections over James Dobson when they conflict. Render unto Caesar, and all that.

If Dr. Dobson decides that he cannot support one or more or all of the candidates in the GOP presidential field, that’s fine. That’s his right as a private citizen, and I won’t criticize him for that. I may proceed to put on my hat as a private citizen and argue that his point of view is wrong, but I won’t deny him the right to state his point of view. But I do ask that those on the other side of this debate be equally understanding when we Republicans and political conservatives, whose primary function is to win elections and govern the country, will then as a consequence have to pull back from Dr. Dobson. James Dobson is not an arm of the Republican Party. Fair enough. But neither is the Republican Party an arm of any religion. In 2004, the two were able to work together because of an overlap in support for the party’s presidential candidate. In 2008, if Dr. Dobson simply cannot in good conscience support our party’s nominee, I won’t criticize him for that, and anyone who doubts me can bookmark this post. All I ask is that Dobson’s supporters demonstrate the same level of understanding if the Republican Party and the conservative movement have to choose between removing James Dobson from the equation and, say, replacing an electable candidate he can’t support with an unelectable candidate that he can support. Asking that Rudy Giuliani or Fred Thompson talk more about their faith in order to garner Dobson’s support, you see, is just as unfair as asking Dr. Dobson to prioritize his faith to a lesser degree in order to get on the Rudy or Thompson bandwagon.

In any case, I think Erick’s post helped bridge the gap between the two sides on this issue, and I hope this post does so as well. As for the continuing Erickson/Hewitt saga…well, that’s just fun to watch.

Update: It appears that Dr. Dobson has done the right thing and has apologized to Fred Thompson!

With regard to your possible acceptability as a candidate for president, I commended your consistent support of pro-family positions. However, I said while I had no first-hand knowledge of your religious views, I was not aware that you had professed to have made a Christian commitment. If so, I said, that might discourage support from some Christian conservatives. The remarks were not intended to represent either an endorsement of Newt nor a disparagement of you. Instead, as my media representative explained in a follow-up call to the reporter, Dan Gilgoff, the comment reflected my efforts to “read the tea leaves.” Let me say again that I told Mr. Gilgoff I had never met you and didn’t know if my understanding of your personal faith was accurate or not. What he wrote was quite the opposite.

Good for Dobson. He did what was necessary to stay relevant in the political world, which is a world organized not around revealed truth or orthodoxy, but which is based instead on one principle: the art of dealmaking. Again, this is Caesar’s kingdom. And when in Rome…