The limits of faith-based politics

As impressive as Mike Huckabee’s nine-point win in the Iowa caucuses was last night, in the minds of most of the political world, it seems to come with something of an asterisk — he won because religious right voters have a huge influence in Iowa, an influence that doesn’t exist everywhere else. Huckabee succeeded, but he also allowed himself to be defined — he’s the Evangelical Candidate.

Apparently aware of the limits of such a label, the Huckabee campaign is apparently trying to push the narrative in the other direction.

Huckabee campaign manager Chip Saltzman and national chairman Ed Rollins discussed the future of the campaign in a press conference after the Huckabee victory party.

Saltzman called the win “an absolutely game-changing moment for presidential politics.” He downplayed the role of evangelical voters, saying Huckabee attracted fiscal conservatives and other Republican caucus votes.

Nice try, but one hovering bookcase/cross later, it’s a little late for that.

Indeed, most observers seem to be interpreting the results in an entirely different, and far more accurate way — last night, the religious right flexed its muscles, and reminded the GOP establishment that it’s still not content to be ignored.

Tom Schaller noted:

Following two generations of ever-widening clout by Christian conservatives, last night’s convincing victory by former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee provided a warning to the establishment wing of the national Republican Party that it may no longer be able to pass off its preferred candidates to the party’s most loyal supporters. In this largely-white, rural heartland state, where insurgent conservative candidates of the past have done well but usually finish second, Huckabee’s evangelical-led, 34 percent to 25 percent Bible-thumping of former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney sends to national party leaders a powerful signal that evangelical votes cannot be taken for granted.

In the WSJ, Gerald F. Seib added:

So much for the idea that evangelical Christians are a dispirited and declining force in the Republican party.

Last night they showed up in force — in stunning force, actually — in Iowa’s caucuses. They were the power that made a winner of former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee. And they now pose a challenge for Mitt Romney, Rudy Giuliani and John McCain — for every other serious contender, in other words.

Some six in 10 Republican caucus-goers described themselves as born-again or evangelical Christians, entrance polls showed. Almost half of them voted for Mr. Huckabee. Just two in 10 voted for former Massachusetts Gov. Romney. In a very real sense, evangelical voters, as much as Mr. Huckabee, won Iowa’s caucuses on the Republican side.

But there’s a reason Huckabee’s victory, unlike Obama’s, is not propelling him to frontrunner status — everyone, including every political reporter and the entire Republican establishment — knows full well that the religious right’s numbers are weaker elsewhere, and Huckabee’s support with the rest of the GOP’s factions is underwhelming, at best.

It’s certainly possible that Huckabee will capitalize on last night’s success and ride the wave quite a bit longer, but I honestly don’t see him much closer to winning the nomination than he was 24 hours ago at this time.

The first time he loses in a state that does not have a sizeable evangelical influence the bloom will go off that particular rose and he’ll be revealed as only the latest paper tiger to drop by the wayside. The longer he stays in the race the more obvious that will become.

  • He’s not acceptable to them because he’s socially conservative but an economic populist. This scares the crap out of the corporatist wing of the GOP..

  • Don’t underestimate Huck’s support. Theocons show up at the polls in greater percentages than any other GOP faction. So even if they’re a minority within their own party, when it comes to turnout, they swing a mighty pair of hairy ones.

  • There are lots of evangelicals in South Carolina. There are lots of evangelicals in Florida. Before Iowa, Huck was leading by a wide margin in the Oklahoma poll and will probably win here. I expect him to do well in Texas, and all across the Bible Belt South. He doesn’t have to run the table on Romney and McCain, just win a majority of the delegates.

    Don’t forget, evangelicals are fired up about Huck. The rest of the Republicans are in a blue funk. Turnout means everything in primary elections.

    Might we see a brokered Republican convention?

  • trying again:

    Ddid anyone else find Chuck Norris and his blond bombshell trophy wife a little distracting during the Huckabee speech last night? It was hard to pay attention to Huckabee with the two of them grinning and overreacting to everything he said. And then, in the middle of the speech, the two of them suddenly decided to switch places! Bizarre. Is Huckabee trying to be the Hollywood glamour candidate? I don’t get it.

  • I always find Chuck Norris distracting. But I suspect that the level of distraction depended upon the camera angle of the station.

  • In this largely-white, rural heartland state,

    Er, as someone pointed out, EVERY state is largely white.

  • “Did anyone else find Chuck Norris and his blond bombshell trophy wife a little distracting during the Huckabee speech last night”

    It totally reminded me when Lamont had Jesse and Al right behind him after he won the primary… I didn’t get them being up there either.

  • jen –

    Good point. On MSNBC, 3 faces filled most of the frame: Huckabee, Norris, and Norris’s wife.

  • “Some six in 10 Republican caucus-goers described themselves as born-again or evangelical Christians, entrance polls showed. Almost half of them voted for Mr. Huckabee.”

    Seems to me we’re missing the story here. He only got 34% of the vote; what happened to the other 26% who were evangelicals or born-again? And that’s assuming he didn’t draw a single non-evangelical/born-again. If he drew some, even more evangelicals and born-agains are unaccounted for. It appears that a substantial portion of them aren’t buying his schtick.

  • Okie makes good points. I wouldn’t discount the possibility of Huckabee riding to the nomination on a wave of southern and midwestern evangelicals, while Romney, Giuliani, and McCain split the rest of the states.

  • Romney overwhelming won the entrance polls of non-evangelicals in Iowa. I’m hoping the rest of the country gets behind Romney with his incredible executive abilities. I also think that he has a much better chance of winning the election than Huckabee.

  • #3 is right, we’re seeing the same old formula – the neocons and the oligarchs depend purely on the theocons to win elections.

    The most theocratic dude will get the nomination; If theocons are fired up enough in November about something, the R’s win. The question is what issues they can put no the ballot in November (like the threat of gay men in wedding dresses of 2004).

  • The problem is that Huckabee is the William Jennings Bryan of the GOP. He may get the grassroots stirred up, he may even get the nomination, but the party establishment doesn’t like him and they know he won’t will the general election.

  • Looking at the entrance polls (http://
    http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/primaries/results/epolls/#val=IAREP),
    Huckabee’s victory cannot be attributed only to homeschoolers and the
    religiously devout. Huckabee won among Bush supporters of all
    stripes; he won in every region of the state; he won solidly among
    all voters who identify as Republicans; he won in every income
    category other than those earning more than $100,000. He won among
    voters whose top issues were illegal immigration, Iraq, economy and
    terrorism. Although his support was really strong among
    evangelicals, the entrance polls do not show him winning fully half
    of those voters (46% went to Huckabee; the rest divided their votes
    across the other candidates). Huckabee’s appeal was not narrow, at
    least not in Iowa. Though that will nevertheless be the media’s
    reading unless/until he can replicate his victory outside Iowa.

  • Look for the GOP to take some strong measures against the possibility of Huckabee actually becoming the nominee, now that said possibility has been shoved in their faces. Huckabee is just not their sort, and it staggers the imagination how the religious right just lost patience all at once and rammed him to his current prominence. However, few could imagine Huckabee in bed with Big Business like they could Rudy, or even Romney. The interventionist faction blanches whenever Huckabee reveals that he doesn’t know if Pakistan is closer to Jordan or Wisconsin, and dreams of McCain in the drivers seat with his in-Iraq-for-a-hundred-years foreign policy position.

    The GOP played a game of appeasing the fundamentalists with what was largely lip service, and now those chickens have come home to roost. But I don’t believe there’s any way the GOP is going to allow Huckabee to be the nominee without pulling out all the stops – including self-destruction – to prevent it. As those wise political heads above have suggested, a brokered convention may well be their out (although God knows how they’d persuade Huckabee to step back now that he has the scent of the Oval Office carpet in his nostrils).

  • It totally reminded me when Lamont had Jesse and Al right behind him after he won the primary… I didn’t get them being up there either. -JRS Jr.

    And that didn’t work out well for Ned, either.

    He’s not acceptable to them because he’s socially conservative but an economic populist. -andy phx

    I’m not sure a supporter of the ahem, FairTax, could be accurately described as an ‘economic populist.’ I think fucktard would be more apt.

    And, lest we forget, Chuck Norris is only relevant because he’s an internet meme thanks to this site:

    http://4q.cc/index.php?pid=top100&person=chuck

    Otherwise, he’s just an old wrinkled piece of leather that used to make shitty movies and the punch line of a Conan O’Brien joke.

  • The Christian-right doesn’t worry me as much anymore. It’s the FairTax crowd that’s scaring the hell out of me. They’re loud, mean, determined, frequently dishonest and horribly wrong. Unfortunately, they now have a leading candidate to hitch their one-issue wagon to.

    I think we need to watch out for these guys. I hope I’m wrong, but they could be dangerous.

  • Hukabee won but my god look at the choices for republicans.

    Note to evangelicans in the republican party…it’s a political party not a church group and even though you will always be influential, it will always be a political party and not a church group. The three or so out of a hundred that would actually vote for a candidate based on his religious beliefs alone will never become overwhelming in party influence and certainly will never get anyone in the WH based on their religious belief.

    Hukabee isn’t even sure which direction one should go in to get to Iraq. It will take more than Jesus, a bass guitar and a NASCAR cap to get him into the WH.

  • I think Huckabee will be the nominee because the evangelicals like him, but they’re obviously not totally in love with him either, given their weak turnout even in Iowa. Maybe he’ll shoot himself in the foot some more and they’ll turn on him before it’s too late and go for McCain, but I hope not. The media loves McCain way too much, and Americans in general want another religious, intellectual lightweight like they want a root canal.

    Go Huck!

  • JoeBob @ #5:

    We must have been watching the same channel! Huck was talking, and all I could say to myself is “Wow – who is the babe standing behind Huck?” Then I saw Chuck Norris back there and figured out where I had seen her before. Then they switched sides!

    Hilarious, but perhaps probably done on purpose. The less that people listen to what Huck says, the better his chances.

  • I only wonder what they will do if Huck isn’t the nominee. Will they vote GOP anyway or just stay home?

  • I am just happy that it is now official that the GOP owns these folks. No getting around that.

  • First, I think it is worth pointing out that Iowans showed up at Democratic caucus sites in record numbers. For most of my life time the state has been a leader in literacy and, though conservative, has a long history of backing Democrats over nut cases.

    So, when we talk about Iowans as a large group, we are talking about a State that backed Obama in a big way. Huck’s big win would barely have registered on the Democratic side.

    Second, because we are talking about the choices of a subset we need to be careful in assessing what will and what will not translate. I think that Huck’s campaign is actually doing something smart. The problem isn’t that Iowa’s demographic is skewed, but that pandering to the right isn’t what worked. Huckabee did well in Iowa because he is reportedly funny, likable, and does not use harsh neocon rhetoric. Think about it, Iowa sees these folks up close and personal and most the GOP crowd are intolerable a-holes.

    Even ‘losing’, when a left leaning Mormon takes second in an Iowa GOP environment we have to seriously reconsider the true influence of fundementalism.

  • I always find Chuck Norris distracting.

    And he was even more so with his glow-in-dark-and-able-to-be-seen-from-space teeth. Dude needs to back off the whitener.

    As far as the evangelical vote goes, I’m still not sure why they get so much run.

    Yes, they get a lot of ink from pundits and can turn out the vote, but they are still a small fraction of the overall electorate. And as Obama proved last night, younger voters and independents are a much, much bigger voting block and can be a much, much stronger force when motivated to come out and vote. That last part has the been the big issue in the past — getting those young and more moderate voters out to the polls.

    That’s why I’m starting to back Obama — he can motivate those who normally stay away from voting due to the vitriolic nature of most campaigns and the “same old politician” appearance most candidates exude. Rightly or wrongly, he’s seen as the one who is different, and people are paying attention. They just love the charisma and the message. A lot.

    I really hope Obama gets the nod because, if he does, the evangelical vote will be irrelevant in November, no matter whom the GOP throws out there.

  • For Governor Romney, the silver lining in the entrance poll results is that even among evangelical Christians he came in second.

    Before Romney began his campaign, approximately 99 and 44/100% of evangelical Christians would rather have voted for the devil than for a Mormon.

    For Huckabee’s identity politics to succeed, he has to get that 99 and 44/100%. Ain’t gonna happen.

    Tracy Hall Jr
    hthalljr’gmail’com

  • I’m curious to see if Huckabee can carry any portion of a non-bible-belt state.

    But one way or another, he’s going to challenge the Republican’ts calm assertion that they can take Evangelical voters for granted without letting them put up a candidate of their own.

    Of course, the same can be said of Obama and African Americans in the Democratic party.

  • I am an Iowan. I am white. I am a Christian–so I guess that makes me an “evangelical” by the word’s definition yet I have never before identified with nor voted for the “evangelical” candidate. I listened to and spoke with all of the candidates who visited my hometown.

    I caucused for the candidate who listened most intently to my concerns and answered my questions honestly to the best of his ability and who made me feel the most comfortable–that candidate happened to be Mike Huckabee. Isn’t that how the majority of Americans cast their votes?

  • Wowee…the Republicans did it again in Iowa. It isn’t that they are anti choice so much as they are pro ignorance.

  • “who made me feel the most comfortable”. Great criteria for selecting a president. While it may unfortunately be the criteria many Americans use, it is a much better one for selecting a neighbor or a friend. Presidents need a little more of other qualities.

  • Katrina (#12) said I’m hoping the rest of the country gets behind Romney with his incredible executive abilities.

    Yeah, Governor Mittens’ incredible executive abilities to flop and flip and say or do anything to get what he thinks morons like you want to hear. The guy gives a whole new meaning to “insincere Republican.”

    But thanks, Katrina, for demonstrating that computers are now so user-friendly that bimbos lacking frontal lobes and opposable thumbs can use them.

  • sbw has a good point.

    What i gathered from watching the different candidates is Huckabee has a “down-home” charm. He appeals to moderate christians — after all he is the only GOP candidate with a populist view i.e. social change. Certainly none of the other republican contenders have any desire to push muchless address these issues.

    Huckabee comes across as an average guy. Unfortunately there are some troubling things in his past which on the national scale do not bode well. Enough to give voters pause.

    For instance Huckabee believes women ought to be subservient to their husbands and is anti-women pastors. He believes in creationism and disputes darwin. Except he was politically adept when asked about it in his interview on MTP.

    What i’ve read about Huckabee is that he is anti-science, anti-gay, anti-women rights and anti-Palestinian rights. But he does care about poverty and other social issues … that I believe is why he was so popular in Iowa.

    And that seems to be also a strong a message to the other republicans who run on the politics of fear: war, terrorists, torture, et al. While important they fail to address the domestic challenges. Ignoring them won’t make them go away. Huckabee on the other hand does talk about social problems. He connects because he seems to care. Whether that he cares is true or not I do not know. People want change Iam not sure Huckabee is the one who can do that.

    By the same token do not underestimate Huckabee.

  • Look on the computer at Black Box Voting. Seems that 65 PRECINCTS for the Republicans have not had their votes publicized or counted. This seems to be a big story. And, also, Guiliani’s votes were reported as less votes after they were reported as more votes. And, former FBI Division Chief, Ted Gunderson sent a private investigator to Iowa for the Republican caucus. Supposedly the investigator discovered suspicious VOTE COUNT activity. Meanwhile, for more information other investigators may collaborate and contact Ted Gunderson @ 337-235-0651

    ANY and ALL VOTE FRAUD or SUSPICION should be investigated and let the chips fall where they are. We MUST GET HONESTY BACK INTO OUR ELECTIONS. Thanks.

  • To allow further rule of this nation by right wing religous zelots is to seal our fate as a nation and perhaps man as a species. The overwhelming abundance of proven science decrees that we evolved here and if we continue to refuse that fact we will rely upon “God” to save us. That day never has, nor will it ever come. We need to use the best and brightest minds we have in our population to solve the crisis before us and those answers will not come while we repose upon our knees in prayer. Religon is fine for those who need something to support them and forgive their shortcommings but the rock we spin around on requires far more decisive measures to correct the shortcommings we have imposed on it or we will have no future as a species nor will we leave any other species a habitable planet. Is blind faith to be our legacy or will we put religous belief into our private life and use our inteligent resources to solve the problems we have created. Mr. Huckabee is a nice guy and quite likeable, but does he have the brain power to make the decissions that need to be made by man and not by God? Several past societies have placed their future in the hands of their “Gods” and NONE remain, NONE. That alone tells me something about dependance on religon!

  • Katrina said: “I’m hoping the rest of the country gets behind Romney with his incredible executive abilities”

    I live in Boston and have had several friends who worked for Romney. I wouldn’t want the United States to reflect the culture of Bain Capital under Romney’s “executive abilities”. It was very sexist and classist. Staff was quite blatantly divided into class tiers and treated with very different standards. Many painful stories of executives lording their privileges over the “underlings”.

    And, then there’s the integrity of his business practices. Ask all the people who got laid off so that the execs at Bain could make yet another few million dollars, how they feel about his “executive abilities”. This was the basic strategy: buy a struggling company, offering enough money so that the founder would get a lot of money and walk away. Then lay off a lot of staff so that you could show a reduction in costs on the projections. Then sell it to someone else for more money based on these projections and let them deal with the skeleton staff that would have to be increased to actually run the business.

    He’s merciless.

  • Comments are closed.