The Candidates
Featured Archives
I have been troubled by the recent, wrongful allegations of religious bigotry by republicans, 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
December 27th, 2007 at 5:40 pm
Gamecock,
Thanks I really enjoy your stuff….
Now switch back to Team-Mitt, will ya’
December 27th, 2007 at 5:47 pm
sorry, but this post seems a bit disjointed. It seemed like three random posts thrown together.
December 27th, 2007 at 5:50 pm
“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.”
And the people said, Amen.
December 27th, 2007 at 5:51 pm
I don’t think it was disjointed at all – especially after reading your RedState column and the replies you got.
This was excellent and I applaud you for assembling this like you did.
I do disagree with this statement: But Huck’s rise is quite limited in substance and he will fall.
People do see an authenticity in Mike that transcends creed, race, and sex – I think he will go all the way.
December 27th, 2007 at 5:52 pm
#2 What is your editing fee?
btw, you started your sentence with a non-capitalized word.
seemed or seems?
December 27th, 2007 at 5:53 pm
#4 I probably overstated the lack of substance to Huck’s rise.
thanks guy
December 27th, 2007 at 5:57 pm
Wow, Huckabee is falling fast on intrade today. Mitt has closed the gap by 17 points today in the Iowa race.
His huge mistatements today regarding the assassination seems to be biting him in the gluteus maximus!! The Huckabust is happening NOW!!! Nothing bigoted here Mr. DeVine!! 
December 27th, 2007 at 5:59 pm
Speaking of non-bigoted remarks, did anyone catch JFK’s comments on the mormons? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6CHSVC2nAl8
December 27th, 2007 at 6:03 pm
#5,
didn’t mean to hurt your feelings but I don’t see the benefit in combining the bigotry/class envy/blacks and the GOP topics. All three are important and probably worthy of independent posts.
December 27th, 2007 at 6:39 pm
Maybe now Southern Baptists and Christians can look past their differences and get along.
December 27th, 2007 at 6:45 pm
no 9
I accept that free crticism
December 27th, 2007 at 6:46 pm
#7 AGREED!!!!
December 27th, 2007 at 7:27 pm
Gamecock,
Your points are poignant and thoughtful, but I do not agree with everything said:
“Each seeks to convert the others, not out of hate, but rather out of love.”
In a ideal world, that would be true, especially when you wear the name “Christian”. However, this website is overly abundant proof positive that evangelicals often use grating criticism and negative emotions to point at others doctrines they do not agree with. Love has nothing to do with it.
I’m not familiar with his mentioned speech at a Protestant church, but in an interview, Huckabee highlighted LDS beliefs with the intent to smear, not clarify. He was inviting intolerance. We heard what he said, saw how he did it.
I prefer a more complete definition of “Bigot”: a person obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices; especially : one who regards or treats the members of a group (as a racial or ethnic group) with hatred and intolerance.
One point that is continually skipped over in regards to Smiley’s debate. The MSM put words in the candidates mouth as to why they did not attend Smiley’s debate. Racism! anytime it’s a black person and that black person doesn’t get what they want, its racism!! What about the scheduling of the debate? It was scheduled during the last week of the quarter, when every candidate is heavy with committed, essential, fund-raising activities. No debate, anywhere would be successful at recruiting participants at this time. Secondly, the candidates, including Obama get so many invitations for debates that they have to turn quite a few down. And you don’t hear so much whining from anyone else. The victim card gets a little old Gamecock. The candidates have frantic schedules to manage and they have to look at debate, speech, and other invitations for their merit, their timing and amount of good done. They have to consider if other candidates will be there. Smiley’s debate did not pass the test, and rather than cry racism, neglect, etc., look at all the circumstances. And the very first circumstance that doesn’t pass the test is the “set-up for failure” timing.
December 27th, 2007 at 7:39 pm
Gamecock, great article. My basis for claims of bigotry is that Huck & Brownback supporters (and a few others)seem to bring up tennants of the LDS religion in the context of a political discussion and link it to Romney: “if he believes that he is not fit to…”. Otherwise, let the debate continue…
December 27th, 2007 at 8:12 pm
#13 and #14 I agree, but I think those that cross the line are a minority.
December 28th, 2007 at 6:34 pm
GodVoter.org Picks Romney: http://www.godvoter.org/news-romney-disdorsement.html