Dan Gilgoff has a piece in the LA Times today which examines the subjects of Mike Huckabee and political compromise.
To many conservatives -- and even to some liberals and neutral observers -- the Robertson endorsement vindicated Huckabee's complaint that Christian right leaders "are more intoxicated with power than principle."
I'd have to concur with Huckabee in this assessment. However, I also have to wonder if that analysis isn't true of some Huckabee supporters also. The "mainstream" media isn't making it easy to find out, but Huckabee has a lot of negative baggage that should disappoint conservative Christians. I have to wonder: if these conservative supporters of Huckabee have done their homework, why are they still supporting him? Could it be that they are backing Huckabee over a consistent pro-life conservative like Duncan Hunter because of "power over principle?"
Gilgoff's editorial, while insightful, is not friendly toward conservative Christian values, however. It speaks well of the religion of compromise.
One of the most troubling tendencies of the Christian right has been its habit of translating the black-and-white literalism of its theology to the political realm. Under this model, Democrats and moderate Republicans are God's sworn enemies and must be opposed at every turn. Rather than compromise, the Christian right has attempted to stage a conservative Republican "takeover" of Washington, with considerable electoral success during the Bush years but with poisonous consequences for politics and policy.
Isn't it funny how you always hear that conservative efforts to advance their agenda are bad for America, but you never hear it said that liberal efforts to ramrod their agenda--even at the cost of ignoring the Constitution--are never labeled as bad? And have you ever noticed how it's always conservatives who are called to worship at the altar of "compromise," never liberals or "moderates?" If I didn't know better, I'd find that curious indeed.
Political names and party affiliation do not determine whether one is "God's sworn enemy." The things we advocate and excuse, regardless of whether we have a D or R after our name, do determine whether we are operating in harmony with what God has said is right or wrong. If the political group I'm in reaches the point where it begins to embrace most things that God says are wrong, then I probably need to look at moving OUT of that political group. That's why many people who have been Republicans for decades are considering supporting a third-party candidate if the Republican Party embraces a pro-abortion pro-homosexual candidate as its nominee.
Conservative Christians may find themselves in a position where they have to compromise, and perhaps settle for a Huckabee or Thompson over a Clinton or Obama. But in the primary state, now is not the time for choosing the lesser of two evils. Now is the time to fight for the best candidate. And none can hold a candle to Duncan Hunter when it comes to a consistent pro-life conservative record across the board.
HT to RedState.
0 comments:
Post a Comment