"Preacher Primary"

Howard Fineman writes an article entitled Preacher Primary: Republican Presidential Hopefuls Court Evangelical Kingpens that Could Determine the 2008 Nomination.  Here's how the piece begins:

The Republicans’ first primary contest is next week, and it’s not in New Hampshire. It is in Orlando, at the annual meeting of the National Religious Broadcasters. GOP presidential candidates will be there to try to generate buzz that will translate into evangelical airtime—and support in "the base” in 2008.

Toward the end of the essay, Fineman points to a potential development that might help former Arkansas Governor Mike Huckabee break out of the second-tier of Republican presidential hopefuls:

[James] Dobson has said nice things about [Mitt] Romney, but at a private meeting of Christian activists in Washington last week, I am told, he made the case—at least for the sake of argument—for [Mike] Huckabee, the personable former Arkansas governor who also spent a good bit of his career as a Southern Baptist preacher.

The whole article is worth a read -- it specifically describes a number of ways in which a handful of prominent religious conservatives are attempting to shape the race for the Republican nomination.  While I don't agree with every point of Fineman's analysis, it seems to me that he's mostly right in terms of his description of how things are.

But what about how things should be?  In my view, it's troubling to see ministers (and, in the case of James Dobson, a prominent religious leader) playing these kinds of roles.  This activity goes far beyond ministers endorsing candidates in their individual capacities.  It's a group of ministers acting, or attempting to act, as king-makers in a particular political party.  One really risks losing a spiritual vision and attitude when one is consumed with hardball party politics.  For example, an unwavering commitment to a particular political party sorely tempts a person to shape messages so that they help, or at least don't hurt, that party.  How can we be truth-tellers when we are selective in our statements or when we otherwise skew things to ensure that our preferred party prevails?

In my view, religious people should raise their voices on policy issues.  But when religious leaders try to establish themselves as king-makers within the apparatus of any political party, they not only threaten their own integrity, they also threaten the integrity of religion itself.

Comments

[Christian Feminist]

I think it's fairly telling that the GOP presidential lineup is sorely lacking in racial and gender diversity. They are missing some very valuable allies in their war against gay marriage, terrorism,
and abortion because of their refusal to consider female and non-white candidates. They do this every time. I am sorry to see so many Republicans jockeying to win the favor of Religious Right leaders. Religion is poorly served by such political posturing.

[Jeff Sharlet]

A year ago, I wrote a profile of Sam Brownback in which I noted that he seemed to have the backing of Jim Dobson, whom I'd interviewed by email. No peep from Dobson. A few weeks ago, he demands that Rolling Stone print a correction (it didn't; I had the goods). This news about Huckabee maybe explains why Dobson came calling.

On an entirely unrelated note: I just learned about this blog, which will become part of my weekly blog routine. But I'm a little hurt: How come The Revealer doesn't rate your blogroll? I don't think it can be political, given that we publish writers from across the spectrum.

[Melissa Rogers]

Jeff, great to hear from you. My apologies for the oversight. I've added The Revealer to the blogroll. Interesting note about Dobson. I look forward to staying in touch.