God and GOP in Florida
The 933rd Republican debate last night did not add much to the sum of human knowledge. Viewers were treated to extensive discussion of Newt Gingrich’s lunar colonization plans, the revelation that Mitt Romney has no idea what’s in his own TV ads (never mind that “I’m Mitt Romney and I approved this message” tag), and confirmation that Rick Santorum has borrowed his misunderstanding of the Declaration of Independence from Alan Keyes.
Ron Paul repeated his call to end the embargo against Cuba. Shocking to pundits, who thought it a suicidal move, but the audience cheered. (Cuban politics in Florida has been changing; there’s a segment of younger Cuban-Americans that has been waiting a long time to hear this message.) A question about healthcare from an unemployed woman was Paul’s most difficult of the night and illustrated one of his weaknesses: he gave a thoughtful, historical account of why healthcare costs are so high (largely due to federal involvement, particularly Medicare), but now that costs are astronomical, what are Americans — especially those out of work — to do?
One of the hardest challenges all libertarians face is how to sell the transition from a statist system to a freer one: we’ve seen plenty of examples worldwide, perhaps most appallingly in the former Soviet Union, where a botched transition has discredited anti-statist ideas and exacerbated human suffering. Congressman Paul and his staff have given this some thought — hence his repeated insistence that he won’t end welfare-state programs while people are dependent on them — but his presentation is still long on diagnosis and short on prescription.
Near the end of last night’s debate came a question about how each candidate’s religious beliefs would influence his administration. A trap for Mitt? He gave a bland answer about the importance of the Judeo-Christian tradition. Ron Paul again dared to say something that wouldn’t win him many votes: that his oath to uphold the Constitution would be more important than his religious beliefs.
Newt or Mitt — they were indistinguishably ecumenical — invoked the importance of praying to God for instruction. This brought to mind memories of George W. Bush saying that he didn’t get his father’s advice before invading Iraq, he consulted a higher Father instead. There’s a fine line here: it’s one thing to ask God for the wisdom to make the right decision; it’s another for a politician to believe that his policies are endorsed by the Almighty. Realistically, what leader is going to hear the voice of God telling him anything other than, “Go for it”? Could you imagine a circumstance in which Newt, or Bush, or Obama, hears a voice telling him to call off the war? Cool it with the tax cuts or government growth? Where God and the American president are concerned, the phrase that comes to my mind is the one about hardening Pharaoh’s heart.
Santorum took the occasion to emphasize the Declaration of Independence as the “why” of American government (in contrast to the mere “how” of the Constitution) and ascribed a rather bold theology to a document that, after all, was drafted by Thomas Jefferson, a man not renowned for his orthodox beliefs.
Political Christians today have a hard time understanding the religious configuration of the early United States. The difficulty is that the least conventionally religious Americans of the day were often political allies of people we would now identify as ancestors of the Religious Right. Deists and Baptists alike did not want to be taxed to support established Anglican or Congregationalist churches, and there was a strong strain of anti-clericalism and emphasis on individual judgment among both the philosophers and the extreme Protestants. Total disestablishment and liberty of conscience were policies that appealed to both types; each was absolutely confident that within a generation it would inherit the earth if the marketplace of religious ideas were left free.
Most Americans did not take as hard a line on church-state relations as Jefferson, Madison, and the devout among their allies did; the poles of opinion back then were those who saw establishment in anything less than a “wall of separation” and those who thought that a vague but public Christianity was an indispensable prop to civil order. Even those poles did not always attract the alliances you might expect; a doubting Unitarian like John Adams was quite firmly on the side of a civil — but certainly not established — Christianity.
It’s fair to say that Ron Paul is very much in line with Madison and Jefferson. (Indeed, one suspects a President Paul, like Madison, would have reservations even about declaring a day of thanksgiving and prayer — where does the Constitution say the president should do that?) It would be interesting to see a politician who could articulate the civil Christian point of view in anything other than a rote manner. Alas, instead we have Gingrich, Romney, and Santorum.
The worst part of the debate for me was Gingrich often saying Ron Paul had good ideas and they agreed. Now I have to double-check Paul as I mistrust Gingrich more.
Ron Paul is more ingenuous. One of the (book of) judges made an oath to sacrifice the next person through his door and ended up sacrificing his daughter. Paul would never swear such an oath because he takes it seriously.
Who is more religious, one whose oath is fuzzy or insincere, or one who will honor his word no matter what?
Daniel,
Who would be, in your opinion, the last politician with a significant national voice to bring the civil Christian perspective into the public square? Also, do you have any idea what the Paul camp is hoping to accomplish with the accumulation of a large number of delegates (platform, convention speech, flex muscles of movement, vice presidency)?
The religion question showed one of Ron Paul’s biggest weaknesses; he is not good at thinking on his feet and improvising answers. It was a stupid question, but a presidential candidate is going to have to answer a lot of stupid questions in at least a feigned sincere manner, and Paul wants to turn everything back to libertarian bullet points.
I missed the debate. Did Santorum specifically mention Keyes, or just spout unmistakable Keyesisms?
tz
To be clear, the vow in Judges was for life long dedication to the Lord and perpetual virginity; not a sacrifice of death. Granted, the vow was not such a good idea either way.
Just Keyes-ian, Red, no specific mention. You didn’t miss much.
Benjamin Nagle asks two interesting questions. I don’t know exactly what Paul’s campaign has planned, but there are several possibilities. First, although it’s least important for the presidential race, the experience activists get from actually attending the state conventions that pick delegates is useful for gaining influence in the party at the local level. So there’s some movement-building there. In the event of a brokered convention, Paul delegates would give him some negotiating strength, which could be put toward any of the things you mention. (Though I hope he doesn’t waste political capital on the platform.) The party might let Paul speak at the convention about the Fed, but I suspect if it’s a speech he wants, Paul will want to go for the most challenging topic, national security. Even without a brokered convention, delegates give a candidate a bit more of a voice, however small.
There was probably nothing quite like the civil Christianity of the Federalist era ever again, but William Jennings Bryan and Woodrow Wilson made Christianity articulated two late variations on the theme. Maybe someone could make a case for Huckabee; I was always distracted from his message by all the bass twanging and Chuck Norris.
Tuning out the debates. There have been too many of them for National audiences anyway. Local coverage only would be a good idea at this point. For political watchers, we know where the candidates stand on the issues.
As to what Paul hopes to gain by his presidential run. Given the current economic situation, it is my opinion that Paul thought he could win. The crowded field gave him some hope early on to win a few states and build some mo from there. If it came down to Mitt v. Ron, then Paul probably believed he could win. Newt’s win in S.C. has put a dent in that strategy.
Santorum cannot go on much longer without a win. Paul needs a win as well, but can go all the way due to his passionate supporters. Mitt will probably win because Newt is freaking crazy.
There are only BigGov Conservatives in the GOP today.
Ron Paul might do well to recall Anti-Federalist fears that the national government would interfere with the state’s established churches, which is what actually led to the Establishment Clause (“Congress shall make no law respecting an Establishment of Religion . . . .”).
A number of Anti-Federalists, who made all the admonitions Ron Paul makes now about an out-sized national government with imperial ambitions and a permanent standing army, could not have imagined republicanism surviving without state support for religion, since they viewed a sturdy, virtuous citizenry as indispensable for republics to work. In the main, they were not separationists like Madison of Jefferson. Of course, the republics they were worried about were the states. They would have preferred for the federal government to remain a confederation or something close to it, with no power to do anything regarding religion.
I don’t how to translate that message into something that makes any sense for 2012 America, though. Advocate the dis-incorporation of the Establishment Clause via the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment (something Clarence Thomas has hinted at)? Yeah, there’s a campaign stem-winder.
“Ron Paul again dared to say something that wouldn’t win him many votes: that his oath to uphold the Constitution would be more important than his religious beliefs. ”
Unfortunately few these days would recognize an implicit appeal/nod to the third and the ninth commandment and that might include Paul. Which is to say, that’s how far off track we are. Those who might claim to be the most religious/Christian don’t know their abc’s.
Further, Neil Postman in his Amusing Ourselves to Death; Public Discourse in the Age of Show Business, argues ala McLuhan that the invariable nature of TV is entertainment. In the same vein the debates are more resemble auditions for the media’s favorites rather everybody getting a fair and even shot at responding to all the questions.
Re: To be clear, the vow in Judges was for life long dedication to the Lord and perpetual virginity; not a sacrifice of death.
The text admits of that possibility, but taken literally it was a vow of death. And many of the Church Fathers interretted it in that manner. some moderbists, wishing to absolve and of the Hebrew eaders of such a act, press the alternate interpretation above.
Re: Advocate the dis-incorporation of the Establishment Clause via the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment
Why in the name of Heaven would we even want to mess with it? “If it ain’t broke don’t fix it.”
Basses don’t twang, they thump.
Bob S. wrote:
“Further, Neil Postman in his Amusing Ourselves to Death; Public Discourse in the Age of Show Business, argues … that the invariable nature of TV is entertainment…”
Delighted to see someone reminding us of the enduring wisdom of this penetratingly great book.
You read it, it strikes you firstly as the kind of sociological stuff all sociological stuff ought to be for its hard-nosed thinking, then as being the result of someone who has observed very very closely and then thought very very carefully, and then as a book explaining so much of what we see in society today.
It’s depressing, but forehead-slapping in its explanatory power.
Great observation on your part too, Bob, for remembering the applicability of Postman’s thinking to these debates and explaining them. Just spot on.
Thanks for the response, Daniel. I wonder if a speech can have any sort of meaningful impact. I guess people still discuss Buchanan’s battle cry in the culture war.
In my experience, the younger people who do not listen to talk radio or read the National Review are open to Paul’s ideas, but it is difficult to persuade older conservatives that there is a meaningful alternative to what their opinion leaders are pushing. Do you think that there are any localist or liberty minded voices that might appear on the radio or television ladscape in the near future? Would tradional intellectual and business people ever try to put out a competitor to NPR?
The Fourteenth Amendment incorporation doctrine should be overturned in toto. And that includes the McDonald case, where the Supreme Court held an individual’s right to bear arms is applicable against state and local governments. Buchanan was right when he wrote the following:
“Eventually, the incorporation doctrine, by which all the restrictions imposed on Congress by the Constitution are imposed, through the Fourteenth Amendment, on the states, must be overturned. From Miranda to Roe v. Wade, this is teh authority by which the Court dictates to the nation.” Patrick J. Buchanan, The Death of the West 253 (2002).