Glenn Greenwald got upset when various bloggers were appalled at his supportive posts on Ron Paul. He, after deigning to only sorta cover (and do so poorly) Paul's abortion position in a brief update to one of the posts, emphasized that Greenwald was not endorsing the guy for President. Greenwald was discussing how Paul's concern for executive tyranny and violations of civil liberties (generally by the federal government; and that is a large part of the rub here) was not getting enough attention, even though supporters have underlined that many even in the Republican Party deeply care about such matters.
It was not his concern to supply a full-fledged account, nor did he mean to endorse Paul or any other candidate he said good things about in certain cases. I found this unconvincing in various respects, including the fact it didn't justify the snide way he treated his critics and the slipshod way he responded to the criticism. A honest account would have referenced Paul's advocacy in a more full-fledged way, since that is the way to truly get a feel for the guy and his critics. We simply cannot treat such people in a vacuum. It is not totally different from voting for a guy because he seems like a nice guy, his positions be damned.
Politics is about compromise, so you sometimes (often?) support people who have some flaws that are troubling. All the same, when dealing with someone who supports a constitutional amendment against abortion and the so-called Defense of Marriage Act, while supposedly being a big states rights guy who had a limited view of federal power, well something in wrong ... even without going into other excesses of his fear of federal power such as the desire to strip major areas of jurisdiction from the federal courts and to seriously threaten Social Security. His run for President might be symbolic, but need we toss our protest votes with the likes of this guy?
Does Huckabee still believe that his narrow version of Christianity must dominate every detail of human existence in this country? He doesn't like to answer hard questions about the intersection of his faith and his politics, but it is long past time that somebody demanded a straight answer.
-- Joe Conason
Ditto Mike Huckabee. On Dave and Colbert, he comes off as a very likable guy, one who realizes that to be Christian includes worrying about the poor. The guy apparently read his gospels a bit more closely than some other of his alleged political fellow travellers. All the same, there actually is a reason why so many (including many National Review types) are so wary about the guy. And, it's not just because he threatens the Powers That Be with talk about the ultimate power. His true believer stance on evangelism is a problem.
Yes, to the extent such true believers were exploited by cynical Republican power brokers, we can have scorn. But, as with his lack of credible foreign policy bona fides, this does not make him an ideal candidate. Even if many might think he is particularly honest and able to shake things up. Change for the sake of change is dangerous. And, if we are honest about him as a serious candidate, it is fully proper to address his religious beliefs. He is making them public in character, using them as a reason to vote for him and as a core aspect of his political calculus. It is not in bad taste to understand this and ask questions.
One thing though ...
Not so long ago, he attributed his rising political fortunes, after many experts had written off his campaign, to the hand of the Almighty.
Shades of God wanting Bush to be President. On some level, on find such comments as rather unsurprising and even benign. Or, at least, benign if we accept the general beliefs of the people involved. Liberal commentators, including those who consider themselves "religious" (the quotes underlines my feeling that word doesn't just mean a belief in God and the usual exercises that grow out of that*), are sometimes uncomfortable with those who believe in an deeply interactive deity. But, taking this sentiment too far can be problematic, at least to the degree it calls into question the beliefs of many people the writers are fully comfortable about.
"A firm Reliance on the Protection of divine Providence" (capitalization in original) was recognized by the Declaration of Independence. Such a providence had some effect on human affairs. Millions pray to be guided by God and to thank God for the blessings they receive. Is not this a recognition of "the hand of the Almighty" guiding their lives in some fashion? Now, JC here discusses how Huckabee has expressed much more radical beliefs about God's "hand" so to speak, and the same can be said about Bush's beliefs and policies. Nonetheless, many do think God interacts with the world and has an active part in its workings. In some fashion, what happens is a result of what God "wants."
Some are wary to go too far with that or fall into the safety of vague generalities, but to the degree that is their right does not make it proper to totally avoid the question. Many who despise Bush also feel driven -- by a supernatural force or otherwise -- to a certain path in life as well. They might even say they were "chosen" for such a path or "must" take it in some way. Is this so much different from saying that "God" had a hand in things? The need to be modest about what God or any other personal or impersonal force wants is a separate matter. Quite important ... Christian believers should know the value of being humble.
And, in seeing the true person in front of them. This requires an approach a bit more deep than some seem to desire.
---
* See my second comments here (the main entry also apropos to this post in general) on the use of "gay marriage" and so forth to underline how language can be trick and " " have various purposes too, not just as "scare" quotes.