Huckabee wants to get ‘vertical’

At Saturday night’s Republican debate, Mike Huckabee used a word he emphasizes quite a bit: “vertical.”

“I think we also ought to recognize that what Senator Obama has done is to touch at the core of something Americans want,” Huckabee said. “They are so tired of everything being horizontal — left, right, liberal, conservative, Democrat, Republican. They’re looking for vertical leadership that leads up, not down. He has excited a lot of voters in this country. Let’s pay respect for that. He’s a likable person who has excited people about wanting to vote who have not voted in the past.”

A few hours earlier, Josh Marshall noted that “vertical” is a Huckabee favorite, with the former governor’s website arguing, “I think the country is looking for somebody who is vertical.”

Can anyone explain what the hell that means? Vertical? I guess if you’re main opponent was Fred Thompson you might push the fact that you spend most of your time standing up. But seriously, is there something I’m missing here? Or is this the weirdest campaign I’ve ever heard?

I mean, at a minimum it’s setting the bar for his presidency pretty low, right?

What’s more, by way of James Joyner, there’s apparently an entire “vertical politics” section on Huckabee’s website, in which he touts something called “Vertical Day,” though it’s not quite clear what that means.

So, is this just some slightly-awkward campaign catch-phrase? Perhaps, but it looks like there’s more to it than that.

This probably won’t come as too big a surprise given Huckabee’s faith-based campaigning, but this “vertical” talk seems to have dog-whistle implications.

This is definitely dog-whistle politics — that is, a message delivered in coded terminology and targeted to a particular subcultural group. Conservative evangelicals often talk about the need to prioritize their vertical relationships with God first and foremost before worrying about horizontal relationships among people. It’s the individualized “get right with God” approach of conservative Protestantism.

In contrast, progressive people of faith reject the vertical-horizontal dichotomy as a false one, saying that in interpersonal relationships one’s faith and spiritual teachings are made manifest. Such an outlook is wishy-washy, watered-down liberal theology in the minds of conservative evangelicals. Southern Baptist minister Huckabee knows this, and speaks evangelical-ese with his words. In fact, he’s got it up on his website as well.

I know this is so because I’ve been present a number of times when “vertical” rhetoric — the exact word — has been used in evangelical circles. It’s indeed a way of speaking one hears in many churches, part of the faith vocabulary of the evangelical and fundamentalist subculture.

And from “The God Strategy: How Religion Became A Political Weapon in America”:

That’s the power of narrowcasting. Targeted, under-the-radar messages denote who is part of the club. It’s like a secret handshake, writ large and electoral: politicians who narrowcast religious cues are assigned considerable credibility by voters in the targeted constituency.

Something to keep an eye on.

I say we let him get vertical, because that way he’ll fit down the toilet better.

  • Huckabee scares me rather less than Guiliani.

    That said, we’ve had a President for seven years who believes he’s God’s Candidate, rather than the Candidate of the American People (half true, that). Huckabee seems to be saying here that Obama is working hard to be the Candidate of the (whole) American People, but (slying implied) Huckabee is going to be God’s candidate in 2008.

    I’d respect the guy a lot more if he’d say: “God willing I’ll win this election, but I’ll win this election if a majority of Americans want me to be President.” rather than “God willing I’ll be President.”

  • Don’t get sucked into this too hard. “Vertical” originated in the business world, as a means of describing how projects should have defined leadership and defined goals. The evangelicals simply co-opted it, placing God at the top. You could say it is a double keyword, a wink to business and to evangelicals….

  • CB, you’re hitting the nail on the head with this one. What I’ve seen and heard from the xenophobia circles—the “vertical” gameplan—is fundamental to the establishment of an American theocracy, with a religious-based “caste system.”

    Going from the top down, there’s God, the “right” kind of Christian, the “wrong” kind of Christian, and then a cacophony of “non-Christian” classes. It’s the cornerstone of Dominionist thinking, and it illustrates why Huckabee cannot be allowed to become the next President of these United States.

  • Thank you for this. What infuriates me is that if he gets the nomination (and I think he just might), the MSM will still be scratching its head over the phrase.

    I will say that the Bush/Mike Gerson dog-whistle stuff is subtler — if you don’t get it, it just flies over your head rather than making you stop and say “Hunh?” I’d like to think that means Huck won’t be as successful with this as Bush was, but I’m always afraid to underestimate the ‘Pubs.

  • I doubt that Huckabee understands the business school meaning of “vertical.” This is definitely a dog-whistle to religious conservatives who believe that education and experience are less important in a president than his being plugged into God’s guidance.

    But how to explain George W. Bush, who God told to invade Iraq? Oh, never mind.

    Setting aside his closeness to God, Huckabee is clearly the least qualified of all the presidential candidates, with the possible exception of Alan Keyes. I hope that Huck wins the nomination. His evangelical admirers will vote for him, but hardly anyone else will.

  • Molly Ivins was fond of saying that politics shouldn’t be looked at from right to left but from top to bottom. Sounds vertical to me.

  • Re: Steve (#5) et.al.

    Wow…paranoid much? Are you kidding me? An American Theocracy? You guys are going WAY beyond separation of church and state to out-and-out bigotry against people with religious backgrounds. One might even think that if Hilary Clinton was exactly the same policy-wise (as herself), but mentioned Jesus every 5 minutes, that you’d “crucify” her. So this isn’t about who is going to be a good president, it is about punishing people for having religious beliefs, no?

  • What does that mean?

    Sounds like the logical conclusion is an orthodoxy and an end to pluralism. He means authoritarianism, rather than the non-hierarchical aspects of cooperation and governance.

    I don’t think Obama is like that, I think he’s just using him as a little prop to try to broaden the appeal of his message. At least we probably don’t have to worry about getting Huckabee for president.

  • In contrast, progressive people of faith reject the vertical-horizontal dichotomy as a false one, saying that in interpersonal relationships one’s faith and spiritual teachings are made manifest. Such an outlook is wishy-washy, watered-down liberal theology in the minds of conservative evangelicals. Southern Baptist minister Huckabee knows this, and speaks evangelical-ese with his words. In fact, he’s got it up on his website as well.

    Conservative ministers have a lot of shuck-and-jive that’s meant to get your money headed in their direction and to shore up your allegiance to their personal authority. This idea is part of the arsenal.

  • I indulge in a songwriting hobby (my website is lyrics and songs, not politics), and hang out on The Muses’ Muse, a songwriting workshop community.

    There is a forum there for “Vertical Songwriting” for those who want to rejoice and express their faith in song.

    It’s a meaning of the word that’s very specific to many people — and yes, I think it’s a dog-whistle the same way Bush using the phrase “wonder-working” or mentioning “Dred Scott” in the debate.

  • We don’t really have a true “left” in this country, so “horizontal” loses much of its meaning, no matter how often the pundits turn to that trite image (borrowed from the arrangement of seats in the French Assembly). In this country, our choice is contemporary vs. throwback, tolerant vs. bigot, knowledge/science vs. ignorance/faith, generosity vs. greed — none of which has a very apt spatial representation, certainly not on a single dimension.

    As to “vertical”, our Deist Founding Fathers took as little notice of “up there” as they believed the Creator or Nature’s God took of “down here”, i.e., not much. In fact, they separated the world of politics from the world of religion altogether. Even ignoring that, however, we tend to chop the vertical just as much as we chop the horizontal. The only thing most self-proclaimed religious zealots seem interested in is the lower end of the vertical scale. Jesus’ life and message have very little to do with it.

  • Having a fairly well tuned ear for these kind of signals, I always took “vertical’ to mean focusing on the faithful rather than trying to bring in Mormons, homosexuals and what-not. The Rove-base strategy – you want your coalition rabid rather than broad.

  • At least he didn’t say he wanted to get erect.

    So this isn’t about who is going to be a good president, it is about punishing people for having religious beliefs, no?
    Addison

    You’re either:
    1. Talking about the TalEvan, which includes cHuckabee.
    2. Haven’t been paying attention for a very long time.
    3. Trying to cause an Irony OD.

  • I guess the truth hurts, now doesn’t it, Addison? I’ve dealt with the mindset that says “anything religious is sacrosanct, and therefore is beyond reproach.” It’s a load of bunk. Try doing a Google on “Dominionism.” Try doing another one on “Theocracy.” Do some research on the Inquisitions and the Crusades. Study the historical wars that have been waged—all in the name of the Christian god.

    All of those things—each and every last one of them—began with the rhetorical argument that “Belief A” was superior to all other beliefs. It even went so far as to promote the even uglier ideal that “Belief Aa” was better than “Beliefs Ab through Az.”

    Huckabee and his pals are not about simple religious philosophies; they’re about the power of proselytizing via legislation. The First Amendment says that “Congress shall pass no laws regarding the establishment of religion.” To Huckabee and the Religious Right, this won’t apply to a religion “already established.” They view America as a Christian nation, founded on Christian principles, and their “mandate” will be to remove all laws “prohibiting the free exercise thereof.”

    A law that exists in contradiction to one’s religious beliefs can be defined as a law prohibiting the free exercise of that individual’s religion.

    An administration that moves to promote a religious system cannot be “checked” by the Congress, because the Constitution bars them from doing so.

    A President who submits religious ultra-fundamentalists for nomination to the Supreme Court could not effectively be countered by the Congress—again, because the Constitution prohibits it. I, for one, am not prepared to take the chance of allowing a Presidential administration the opportunity to test those waters….

  • As ‘orion’ above mentioned. It’s a smart way for Huckabee to combine ‘business’ and ‘religion’ in a bumper sticker slogan.

    Religious conservatives, evangelicals, bible thumpers, etc. will understand immediately what he’s talking about. Of course those people don’t really understand what the business meaning of such is. As long as their direct relationship with God is reflected and accepted in Huckabee’s Presidential bid, they could care less what it implies in business.

    The business world can rally behind it as well, to a certain degree, if they assume that
    ‘vertical integration’ implies an authoritarian model of doing business (something evangelicals and religious folks take for granted) Corporate boardrooms understand that religious zealots are in general not the smartest tools in the shed. That way they can be considered as having all those evangelicals as their ‘bottom’ of the vertical paradigm. All the corporate tycoons have to do is ‘buddy up’ with the televangelists, throw them a few bones, and let them deal with the ‘underlings’.

    Wouldn’t work in my book, but certainly smells like a Rovean strategy that might work, to a certain degree…..

    Democrats and Independents will still win in 2008.

  • By the time Chuck Norris is done with a roundhouse kick standing in the middle of New Hampshire, Huckabee’s opponents will all be horizontal…

  • This is the same thing religious leaders have been doing since ancient times: “You all have to listen to the word of God, and I’m the only one God talks to, so you all have to listen to me.”

    If you think about it, ancient people had no knowledge of science at all. If a bunch of people got sick, no one had any reason to take it as the natural result of some germs. Rather, it was a terrifying coincidence, and when some David Khoresh wannabe wanted to get people to feed him instead of having to do work, all he had to do was say that the reason all those people got killed was because God was mad for some reason. The shored up the power of the lies of the religious leader. A new religion always starts with one quack who sells such a good line that after he’s dead, people still believe in it. This doesn’t mean that religions don’t tell us valuable information about a people’s values, or have any good content, because lines that have some truth that is verifiable through experience are a lot more compelling than lines that don’t. So if a guy who claims to talk to God can provide some moralistic teachings that the people really need or that resonate with them at the moment, the people get some real content in their religion, even though they’re being led by someone who knows he’s dishonest. And you can’t even really discount it or blame ancient people for it, because at that time they really didn’t have anything else to turn to or any other explanations to adhere to for what was going on around them. So even though a bunch of people are following a fabricated fairy-tale, it really does in some sense represent the people and their values.

    Times have changed, though, and we have several thousand years’ worth of knowledge that is the fruit of civilization to draw on. The stuff we get from the last hundred years is especially good. There’s no reason to keep listening to Mike Huckabees and Dominionists.

  • One might even think that if Hilary Clinton was exactly the same policy-wise (as herself), but mentioned Jesus every 5 minutes, that you’d “crucify” her. So this isn’t about who is going to be a good president, it is about punishing people for having religious beliefs, no? -Addison

    Right. That’s why the Democrats have roundly rejected Obama. Oh wait, they didn’t and you’re full of shit.

    Also, I think orion nailed it. ‘Vertical’ is a business term the fundies have co-opted, probably because religion is such a lucrative business for many of them.

  • Addison said: “So this isn’t about who is going to be a good president, it is about punishing people for having religious beliefs, no?”

    No, this is about punishing candidates who say they are God’s nominee rather than asking to be the nominee of Americans.

    God doesn’t live in America and he’s not registered to vote here.

    And we’ve had seven years of living under a Theocracy where the President thinks he’s God’s nominee. Don’t need anymore thank you.

  • “Vertical integration” (a la Rockefeller’s Standard Oil and Carnegie Steel) is why we have the Sherman Anti-trust Act, which says, “Every contract, combination in the form of trust or otherwise, or conspiracy, in restraint of trade or commerce among the several States, or with foreign nations, is declared to be illegal”

    The trouble with (most) religions is that they lean in the same direction as unfettered businesses — monopoly dominance — whether they adopt the business terminology or not.

    Religions are tribal in origin, a combination of creation myths and behavioral norms designed to regulate one’s own tribe. You are a member of a tribe because you meet that tribe’s definition of relationship, usually one of kinship. It’s different than citizenship in a nation, where membership is normally defined by residence in a territorial boundary.

    As tribes adapted and expanded and, hence, came into conflict with one another, there were very few paths open to them. Continuous intertribal warfare (only tolerable in the long run as a largely symbolic rivalry), outright conquest (including slaughter or enslavement of the losers), a shift from the tribal level of organization to a territorial one (city-states, nation-states). It is possible for tribes to lessen hostilities somewhat through intertribal marriage (or adoption), but that’s rare and applies only to individuals as a rule.

    Same with religion. None of them is “designed” to eliminate itself in favor of someone else’s. Not willingly. “Compromise” is only possible when one tribe or religion must tolerate the others. That is the genius of our Founding Fathers and their First Amendment, shifting the “ground rules” to an intertribal, beyond-religion level, thus providing an arena within which tribes and religions ought to be able to coexist. But that requires respect for ground rules, and that is precisely what the GOP has abandoned.

  • Can we assume that god hates America if the Huckster doesn’t win ??

    Forget it, I ALWAYS forget that when you pray and it happens, god is the man, and when you lose, well he has a bigger plan in mind, but still the man.

    I’m guessing god and jesus got bucks ridding on this one, otherwise why would they care. For the record, jesus is a fricken bleeding heart liberal who likes Obama. God is made in the image of Reagan and will flood NOLA again if Huck doesn’t get the nod (at least according to Robertson).

  • VERY GOOD! I wondered if anyone else had picked up on the “vertical politics” reference. As someone who wrote my dissertation on the political beliefs of religious fundamentalists in this country, I caught it immediately. Gratifying to see someone else note it as well.

  • No, no – its Lets Get Physical! How could you forget, Huck? You know you lost all the weight workin’ it to my viedos!

  • 8. OkieFromMuskogee:

    I think we underestimate the Huckster at our peril. I heard an independent in NH on NPR this morning saying he might vote Huckabee because he thought the other GOP candidates were loony. Many independents don’t play close enough attention to get that he’s a screw ball. I mean, look at the 2004 election and tell me you have faith in people to notice a guy is unqualified. Did you see his appearance on the Daily Show (so long ago now?) Jon’s audience loved him. The guy seems to fool most of the people most of the time.

  • Also, I think orion nailed it. ‘Vertical’ is a business term the fundies have co-opted, probably because religion is such a lucrative business for many of them.

    No. If anything, business-speak co-opted the term from the God-talkers, who have been using the vertically oriented theme since at least the medieval notion of the Great Chain of Being, with everyone in his place ordained by the Creator, God at the top, kings and princes below, peons and serfs at the bottom. Reformation theology eliminates middlemen, emphasizing a direct, personal and vertical connection to God that is distinct from horizontal relationships to other people. Enlightenment political philosophy then goes a long way toward separating those horizontal relationships among people and states from the vertical dependence on God. Huckabee is now dog-whistling to those who want to claim priority for the vertical relationship to God over any merely horizontal political relationships among people — some even going so far as to claim such things as that it is wholly right and proper to violate Man’s Law if you are following what you believe to be God’s Law.

  • Anyone who has ever been an ordained minister should be banned from politics and holding public office. Their oath to the constitution is second place to an earlier oath. Religious faith is one thing but a leader of religious practice is quite another. They made a choice let ’em stick to it. Stop trying to drag the pulpit into government.

  • Steve Hendricks @28: Please feel free to tip the rest of us off when you see other such references…

  • I’m an evangelical (and a progressive Democrat) and I’m going to have to say that this “dog whistle” is so high that even other evangelicals aren’t hearing it. I did an informal survey of 1/2 a dozen evangelical friends and none thought Huckabee was talking about God.

    Although, I’m not sure it matters. Huckabee has evangelicals on his side regardless of whether or not he dog whistles. Obscure references to “vertical” are hardly going to do bring folks en masse to his campaign…

  • I was just now watching the tape I made of the GOP debate saturday, just watched Huckabee deliver that line about vertical.

    In context, it was unmistakeably unambiguously a dog-whistle shout-out to the churchy part of the base.

  • Steve (#18),

    A President who submits religious ultra-fundamentalists for nomination to the Supreme Court could not effectively be countered by the Congress—again, because the Constitution prohibits it. I, for one, am not prepared to take the chance of allowing a Presidential administration the opportunity to test those waters….

    Remember Harriet Miers? She was criticized for, among other things, being to religious to sit on the Supreme Court. And that was when the Republicans still held Congress. If a religious, Republican President can’t get someone like Harriet Miers confirmed with a Republican Congress, then your argument is completely unfounded. Most likely the next Congress (or two, or three…) will still be Democratic in both houses.

    Let’s see…George Bush had 6 years working with a Republican Congress, and appointed 2 Supreme Court judges. Remind me when they started throwing atheists and women who had abortions in jail?

    When Barack Obama wins the nomination, I guarantee that he is going to make some attempts to appeal to evangelical voters and put his faith on display. Are you going to vote for a bad presidential candidate, rather than a good one who acknowledges his/her religious beliefs, just because you hate religious people so much?

  • Huckabee was talking about the liberal to conservative spectrum being “horizontal” and adding a vertical dimension. What does that mean? It doesn’t make any more sense than Bush’s sudden reference to Dred Scott, unless you get that it’s a coded message.

    It was just a shoutout to his target audience, to confirm which voters get their concerns prioritized.

  • I’m tired of hearing how if a man is a Christian he is greedy and oppressive and generally bad for America. How about Martin Luther King Jr. or maybe any president in the history of America. Whether it’s JFK or all the protestants they’ve all claimed to be Christian at least in lip service.

    As to the history of wars in the name of Christianity or the inquisitions, the same has been done in the name of every theology at one time or another. Stalin was an atheist
    and believed the whole world should be as well and he killed more innocents than Adolf Hitler. Muslims (which Obama is) don’t even need to be mentioned since it’s more recent.

    All I mean to say is because he is a Christian doesn’t mean he’s evil. Just because you may be an atheist doesn’t mean you agree with Stalin slaughtering millions.

    Huckabee was minister of a baptist church of former drug addicts and other social cast-offs and he loved it because he believed it was a church for those not wanted by other congregations and God wants those not wanted by self-righteous men.

    If you think Huckabee is the next Bush then why don’t all the evil corporations give him money to campaign on like Bush had. Bush spent the most money in the history if presidential campaigning? Huckabee is getting outspent 15-1 sometimes 20-1.

    Don’t lump him in the category with anybody else take Christians just like Muslims just like atheists as themselves not as their stereotypes.

  • Casey @39: A candidate’s religion is irrelevant to me unless the candidate makes it relevant, and Huckabee’s done that, because he claims his status as a Christian minister counts as a qualification for the office of president. Furthermore, Huckabee and his co-religionists continually hold themselves up to me and the rest of the world as the model of what Christians should be.

    MLK was a Christian, but so were his opponents, and they were using the same book to justify themselves. The reason Huckabee isn’t being supported by corporations is not because of his religion, but because they don’t think he’ll represent their interests. Bush does, despite sharing the same religion. Who’s more Christian? Who cares? Am I qualified to say who is or is not a Christian? Should I have to figure this out to decide who to vote for?

  • Addison @ 37:

    When Barack Obama wins the nomination, I guarantee that he is going to make some attempts to appeal to evangelical voters and put his faith on display.

    He already did. He held a gospel concert and invited a known anti-gay bigot to perform. It doesn’t get much more evangelical pandering than that.

  • By the way, Obama is not a Muslim. He’s baptized and is a member of Trinity United Church of Christ in Chicago. Christian enough for you, or not?

  • “Liberation Theoigy” teaches getting everything squared away on the horizontal before worrying to much about the vertical which is the opposite of what the huckster is speaking about. I think this country had better concentrate on the horizontal and let everyone take care of their own vertical.

  • Swan (#21),

    This is the same thing religious leaders have been doing since ancient times: “You all have to listen to the word of God, and I’m the only one God talks to, so you all have to listen to me.”

    Are you saying Huckabee thinks he is some kind of prophet? Can you cite a single quote where Huckabee presumes he is the only one that God talks to? Millions of people believe God talks to them through prayer…they can’t all be prophets.

    I have not seen (on this post at least) any actual criticism of Huckabee’s policies…just religious bigotry. How is this different than GOP bigotry, or right-wing evangelical bigotry, or even saying Bill Clinton shouldn’t have been elected president because he didn’t have the right “character”? So Huckabee is too “Christian”…how the heck can he even IMAGINE how to represent people that — “gasp” — don’t agree with his religious views? That seems like a ridiculous argument to me. Can you point to an example where his religious views led to being an inadequate chief executive?

  • How about the whole Dumond case? Looks like Huckabee is a sucker for any criminal who says: “yeah, but I believe in JEEEZUS now, I REPENT, oh ya gotta let me out of jug now!”

    Result: two more dead women.

    Either the Huckster’s a dimwit who’s a patsy for anyone who throws the Holy Jesus line at him, or he knew bloody well what he was doing and Just. Didn’t. Care.

    Neither is good in a POTUS.

  • Addison,

    Cited below are the documented facts concerning Harriet Mires’ nomination:

    The nomination was criticized across the bopard, from both Democrats and Republicans alike, due to (1) never having served as a judge, an intellectual rigor that was arguably shallow, and (3) close personal ties to Bush that suggested the nomination was nothing more than blatant cronyism. The majority of conservatives criticized her nomination, with severasl mainline conservative groups—openly known to be part of Bush’s political base—began an organized opposition campaign, based on the belief that cronyism was being used to further consolidate unilateral power in the hands of the President—what we now refer to as “the Unitary Executive” model.

    Both Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Arlen Specter and ranking Senator Patrick Leahy decided to return the incomplete Committee questionnaire form to Miers; many answers were identified in this return as being “inadequate,” “insufficient,” and “insulting” because she failed or refused to adequately answer various questions with acceptable accuracy or with sufficient detail. The record shows that a number of these questions were left completely unanswered, with the nominee (again, Miers) openly refusing to answer. In tandem with the request, a parallel request was submitted to the WH for any internal documents that would illustrate her qualifications and experience to warrant confirmation to SCOTUS. This additional request—a bipartisan one at that—was summarily denied.

    I don’t hate ALL religious people, Addison—just you—and all others like you, who think that you can wrap yourself up in the name of Jesus and lie like a flea-bitten, mange-infested dog through your teeth and get away with it—all in the name of bringing about a revitalized Christian America.

    By the way—God just called. He hates blasphemous little twits like you, too….

  • Ah ok this makes sense. I’ve sat through several junk marketing meetings and know what the business jargon “vertical” means (basically niche targeted marketing), but when Huckabee said “vertical leadership that leads up, not down” The whole up/down part made no sense to me.

    However, as an evangelical reference, it makes complete sense.

  • Interesting that there can be over 40 posts and no one mentioned the obvious dog whistle in Hucakabee’s Iowa victory speech. Huckabee, if you recall, quoted G.K. Chesterton during his speech. That was a dog whistle. Who heard it? Catholics.

    Chesterton is a famous convert to the Catholic Church. I and several other Catholic bloggers about fell out of our chairs when the Chesterton quote happened. Since Iowa is only about 5% Catholic, similar to Arkansas (7%), the dog whistle was not aimed at Iowa. Who then? How about New Hampshire, which is about 35% Catholic. While all the secular pundits are pointing out the low number of evangelicals in NH, Huckabee, or someone on his staff, has sent a clear unmistakable signal to Catholics who were tuned in.

    http://catholicknight.blogspot.com/2008/01/huckabee-makes-catholic-outreach.html

  • Steve, (#46)

    I don’t hate ALL religious people, Addison—just you—and all others like you, who think that you can wrap yourself up in the name of Jesus and lie like a flea-bitten, mange-infested dog through your teeth and get away with it—all in the name of bringing about a revitalized Christian America.

    Well, I must have gotten under your skin, since I have been arguing against your theory that Huckabee (or anyone else) is aiming to set up an American theocracy. I don’t believe I’ve levied any personal attacks against you (other than “paranoid”), and yet you stoop to insults. I thought only Republicans did that! (according to most posters on this site, anyway)

    If you care to actually read my posts, I never claimed to even be a Christian, nor did I invoke Jesus on my own behalf…just Hillary Clinton’s (was that the “blasphemous” part?). But fair enough, I am a Christian, so now you can really ramp up the invective!

    I also didn’t lie, since Harriet Miers was criticized for her religious beliefs, but props to you for doing your homework.

    from getunderground.com

    I’m not a Pollyanna, but I love a happy ending, especially when it lends hope. I find hope in Washington’s bipartisan defeat of Ms. Miers’ nomination. It’s encouraging to learn that despite their ideological bickering, both Republicans and Democrats can still agree that religious fundamentalism has no place in democratic legislation. God help us if that ever changes.

    At any rate, if you want to call names, you can at least cite proof, lest you come off looking like a raving lunatic.

    To get back on topic…(kind of) American is more secular today than it has ever been. If this country wasn’t minted as a theocracy, it was never going to become one, thanks to the wisdom of our founders. Wake up and smell the freedom, Steve…a President Huckabee wouldn’t send you to jail for what you believe. Furthermore, I know it’s easy to discount someone because of their beliefs…it certainly narrows the field. But you seem like a smart guy, so you might want to make your decision based on performance and accomplishments instead. Sorry, that was unnecessarily condescending. In all seriousness, being religious doesn’t make you a bad person. Really.

    By the way—God just called. He hates blasphemous little twits like you, too….

    By the way — God talks to you too? You and Huck have SO much in common!

  • No matter what Huckabee’s intent was, any of the readings of his vertical leadership style should cause alarm. If it is a veiled reference to a claim that God will be the de facto president and Huck is just his proxy for this election, who knows which version of a god he’ll take his cues from and I don’t like the fact that a) he’s using code word for this rather than being open and b) a theocracy is against our Constitution’s implication that we are a democracy instead.

    If the religious reading is incorrect then he is either referencing the vertical integration model that Ed Stephan noted above which is a new term about trying to emulate J.D. Rockefeller’s style of business monopoly or it may be another term for the loathsome unitary executive theory pushed by Bush and Cheney. Whatever the definition for this term, it looks like nothing this nation would want in its next presidency.

  • ***a President Huckabee wouldn’t send you to jail for what you believe.***

    Your own words, Addison—your own words. You’ll find it rather difficult to retract them in this technological age.

    Your “quote” from g-u.com is a quoted opinion. You’re actually going to refute cited facts—with an opinion? And a third-handed one at that? I’m still trying to understand your subterfuge in using Miers—a shill for Bush’s Unitary Executive wet dreams—as an example of Huckabee.

    Here’s what we have, to date:

    Mike Huckabee never played one iota of his “religious leanings” when he was an “also-ran” candidate. he didn’t break out the “Jesus cannon” until he was up in the polls and could play his “religiosity” as a defining sub-issue, setting himself apart from the other candidates.

    The only reason someone does that is to promote one’s self as superior to all others—and to play to a particular crowd. In this case, Huckabee played to a particular crowd; one that has historically demonstrated a belief- via verbal exchange, that it is acceptable to legislate morality. That it is acceptable to punish people because a religious text containing the words “Judge Not” also contains a list of 600-some-odd “laws,” all but 10 of which were “mysteriously created” inside a smoke-filled tent (the original “smoke-filled back room”).

    What were the words of the Nazarene Carpenter, Addison? To “obey my Father’s Laws—and to those, I add an ELEVENTH?” The Pharisees had him killed for saying things like that; for daring to undermine the hierarchy of the smoke-filled tent—and you want people to embrace a candidate who wants even greater power for religious reasons—who wants to be the modern-day version of a Pharisee?

    Contemplate the historical potentialities of those Pharisees, if they had not been under the yoke of Roman tyranny. Imagine what they might have wrought, had they gained control over the Legions occupying their lands; had they been able to sentence people to death without first having to justify it to a Roman magistrate.

    Apply that to the Inquisitions of the 15-17th centuries—or apply it to the “Sharia” interpretation of Islam’s holy text, where violations so minuscule as interpreting a passage differently than the literal interpretation issued by a religious leader can earn someone the sentence of death.

    Query: Is it your intention to suggest an America that accepts such heavy-handedness, in the name of a god, with such decisions made by a group of like-minded mortals who put themselves up as being the voice of that god, is acceptable?

  • “…I never claimed to even be a Christian, nor did I invoke Jesus on my own behalf…”
    You’re a tricky one, Addison. Nice maneuver.

    I’ve seen few suggestions that all Christians are bad. And there are certainly plenty of Dems who emphatically do not believe that, whilst despising fundies. Do you not differentiate between fundies and non-fundies?

    Do you really think America’s freedom can be preserved by the wisdom of the founding fathers alone? If so, what was the point of WWII?

    And why are you in denial about the fundies’ desire to establish a theocracy? I know they work hard at deniability, etc, but are you stupid, or something?

  • Steve,

    Glad that we’re back on more civilized terms. I appreciate that.

    Your “quote” from g-u.com is a quoted opinion. You’re actually going to refute cited facts—with an opinion? And a third-handed one at that? I’m still trying to understand your subterfuge in using Miers—a shill for Bush’s Unitary Executive wet dreams—as an example of Huckabee.

    Your original post said that Republicans, particularly the religious ones, were out to establish a Christian theocracy. By that, I assume you mean a government which uses it’s power to enforce Christian morals, proselytize, establish a state religion, apply religious tests to government appointees, etc.

    Now, one of the main religious vs. secular battlegrounds is abortion, and the only way a president’s view on abortion really matters is if he appoints pro-life Supreme Court judges, and even then they have to have the opportunity to overturn Roe vs. Wade, and even then, that just means that some states will outlaw abortion, not all.

    But I digress…So my argument was that if Bush wanted to appoint devoutly religious people to the Supreme Court, he had as favorable an atmosphere as possible to do that, and he didn’t. If a Republican (e.g. Huckabee) is elected in November, they won’t have nearly the support in Congress that Bush should have had. Harriet Miers is the closest example I can find, because Bush caught a lot of flack for emphasizing her religious values as part of her “qualifications”.

    Now, you may be surprised that as a Christian, I do NOT support a theocracy, and I don’t think most of the Christians that I know do either. You win converts to Christianity by developing relationships with people, helping them, and doing what Jesus said to do: “Love your neighbor as yourself”. You DON’T win converts to Christianity by oppressing them with laws, taxes, threats or force (aside: the Koran DOES advocate using laws, threats and force to win “converts” – not all theocracies are created equal, as you implicitly acknowledge).

    Now, I think it is a bit unfair to criticize Huckabee for talking about religion, because his day job used to be a Baptist minister, and he still preaches from time -to-time. So, if a Southern Baptist minister runs for President and DOESN’T talk religion…well, he’s going to get slammed by evangelicals for hiding or being ashamed of his faith, and he’ll be slammed by others for not being honest about who he is. So what are you going to do? At least he is honest about where he stands.

    So, the question that should be asked, is, how will religion influence Huckabee’s presidency, and is that a bad thing? His Christian morals would probably influence him to support legislation that restricted abortion (which, of course, is not going to be an issue with a Democrat-controlled Congress). His Christian morals might also influence him to have compassion on children in need of healthcare, and lead him to sign the SCHIP legislation. We know that he had compassion on children of illegal aliens, and allowed them to earn scholarships in Arkansas. Frankly, he’s not that conservative on a lot of issues, so the vitrol directed at him seems like misdirected anger to me. Is it that hard to imagine that someone who holds religious views could actually do some good in this country?

    from Wikipedia:

    Huckabee proclaimed 1997 as a year of racial reconciliation by saying “Let every one of us make it our priority to bring reconciliation, not so much that we can force it or legislate it, because we cannot, but that we begin in each of our own lives to purpose in our hearts that we will not harbor anger, hostility, prejudice, bigotry and racism toward any person.”

    That doesn’t sound like the Trent Lott/Strom Thurmond wing of the GOP. I know a lot of people are cynical about Christians in general, but ponder this: Huckabee has, in essence, agreed to have his entire life, public and private, held to the moral standards of Christianity, i.e. a Biblical standard. And believe me, Christians will hold him to that. You can say of Bill Clinton “he was a bad husband, but a great President”. Of Huckabee, you should expect him to be great at both, for either failure at either one is a violation of the standard he has agreed to be measured by.

    Finally, I’m not even schilling for Huckabee, but for the idea that you should not discount him JUST because he is a Christian, and openly Christian at that. The fact that the Christian religion (and others) have been coopted by various groups for various atrocities throughout history is not a convincing argument that electing Huckabee is tantamount to establishing an American Theocracy (but props to you for knowing your history).

  • Comments are closed.