By Elvin Lim
The Republican party has traditionally been a more ordered, hierarchical organization, one in which the norm of waiting for one’s turn has been entrenched through the decades. When there is no consensus on the available candidates in the field, the runner-up to the last nomination contest becomes, by default, the front-runner. Today, Palin, Pawlenty, Thune, Huckabee, Gingerich, and Santorum are all names being mentioned. Yet no name stands out the way Mitt Romney’s does.
This weekend, Romney topped a straw poll of New Hampshire Republican Party Committee members for the party’s nomination. He was the runner-up in 2008’s straw poll in New Hampshire, and won 32 percent of the actual primary vote, just behind John McCain’s 37 percent. Now, the poll may not tell us much; New Hampshire is a Romney stronghold because he is from neighboring Massachusetts and owns a home in the state. But history and the Republican primary calendar appear to be moving in Romney’s favor.
This is because by the time the South begins to vote to give victories to Romney’s rivals, he would have had three chances to set up a delegate-grabbing momentum. Romney is the front-runner to beat in New Hampshire’s first-in-the-nation primary on or around February 14, 2012. On February 18, he is likely to win again in the Nevada caucuses because of his Mormon base there. On February 28, Michigan, where Romney was born and remains a favorite son, holds its primary. As we know of the law of momentum in primary contests, the early bird catches the nomination. Fortune’s arrows are certainly unpredictable, but she has bequeathed to Romney three shots toward the Republican nomination in the first two weeks of the primary cycle in 2012.
The Tea Party movement is inadvertently helping Romney out too. While everyone else is actively courting the Tea Party, Romney isn’t (and some say, he couldn’t even if he tried, because of his hand in healthcare reform as Governor of Massachusetts). This sets Romney apart to win the more moderate Republicans voting in states like New Hampshire, which happens to have a semi-open primary, which means Independents who are not registered with either party can vote in the Republican primary. Romney’s less than cozy relationship with the Tea Party may actually help him because while Palin and Huckabee et al split the Tea Party vote, Romney would be on his way to a delegate lead.
Republican donors appear to be concurring. Almost every economic index other than unemployment is likely to favor an Obama re-election in 2012, so the Republican party could do well to put someone with Romney’s credentials as a former businessman and CEO at the top of their ticket. With 9/11 a decade behind us (the only reason why Rudy Giuliani was the front-runner at this time in the 2008 cycle), American politics will likely regress to the mean so that 2012, like 2010, will be about the economy. Accordingly, Romney’s PAC (Free and Strong America) has raised more money than that of any other contender, including Sarah Palin, whose PAC raised $5.4 million in 2010, compared to Romney’s $8.8 million. Palin gets the crowds out, but Romney gets their checkbooks out. Big difference; and we aren’t even yet talking about Romney’s personal wealth.
Obama’s approval numbers have gone up for now. But one thing he has always been weak on – and watch him try to address this weakness on Tuesday’s State of the Union address – is that likeable as he appears to be, he is al
Few topics cause more controversy than the discussion about science vs religion. Here Thomas Dixon of Queen Mary, University of London examines the way the debate has been played out in the American political sphere in recent times.
Thomas Dixon is the author of Science and Religion: A Very Short Introduction, which publishes here in the UK next month.
During a televised debate last year between the candidates for the Republican presidential nomination, the host asked if any of them did not believe in evolution. First one, then a second, then a third raised his hand. Former Arkansas Governor Mike Huckabee later elaborated on his opposition to evolution, mocking those who ‘believe they are the descendants of a primate’ rather than ‘ the unique creations of a God who knows us and loves us, and who created us for his own purpose.’
Although to most educated people – especially anyone unfamiliar with the historic strength and depth of creationist beliefs in the United States – these remarks may seem to reveal a shocking level of scientific ignorance, Huckabee knew what he was doing. He is just the latest in a long line of populist American politicians keen to tap into grass-roots religious beliefs. Huckabee, in short, was seeking the approval of that fifty percent of the American population who opinion polls consistently find believe in creationism and not evolution.
The most famous moment in the history of American anti-Darwinism came in 1925 in the small town of Dayton, Tennessee. A local school teacher there, John Scopes, was prosecuted for violating a recent law banning the teaching of evolution. The Scopes ‘monkey trial’ became the focus for a circus of pro- and anti-Darwinism in Dayton that summer, avidly reported by the world’s press. The prosecution case was led by the Democrat politician William Jennings Bryan. Bryan spoke up for the ordinary Christian folk of America against the perceived arrogance and infidelity of the intellectual elite. ‘Does it not seem a little unfair,’ Bryan asked, ‘not to distinguish between man and lower forms of life? What shall we say of the intelligence, not to say religion, of those who are so particular to distinguish between fishes and reptiles and birds, but put a man with an immortal soul in the same circle with the wolf, the hyena and the skunk? What must be the impression made upon children by such a degradation of man?’
Although William Jennings Bryan was a Democrat and Mike Huckabee a Republican, they are from the same political stock, and both aspired to become President. Bryan was the (unsuccessful) Democratic candidate for the presidency on three occasions. Known as the ‘Great Commoner’ because of his belief in the absolute sovereignty of the people, Bryan predicted that local school board elections would become more important than national elections, because parents would care more about the education and morals of their children than about foreign policy or economics. Huckabee’s anti-evolution stance appeals to just the same kinds of populism and localism. Like Bryan eighty years before him, he suggests that the only proper policy is for taxpayers and parents to decide what their children are taught in public schools. What could be more democratic, or more reasonable, than that?
And here is the heart of the liberal dilemma about evolution and creationism. Those who would identify themselves as progressive, enlightened, and liberal, usually consent to the proposition that school curricula should be set in a way that is open to the democratic process rather than being handed down by an autocratic intellectual elite. It seems right that the voters should have a say. But, what when those voters are creationists? Does the liberal instinct in favour of democracy then give way to some more powerful desires – to preserve the division between church and state enshrined in the First Amendment, for instance, or to give due weight to scientific expertise?
Finally it is worth noting that something else that Mike Huckabee has in common with William Jennings Bryan is that, despite his popularity, he is not going to be President. And neither of the men who might in fact be the next President of the United States is likely to provide the kind of encouragement to creationists and proponents of ‘Intelligent Design’ that Huckabee would have offered.
John McCain, during the same debate in which Huckabee indicated his support for creationism, was asked for a yes or no answer to the question ‘Do you believe in evolution?’ McCain looked momentarily uncomfortable, no doubt thinking of that hefty fifty percent of the electorate who would answer ‘No’, before giving a pretty confident ‘Yes’ to evolution. McCain has given some indications that he is happy for ‘Intelligent Design’ to be taught alongside evolution, but it is clearly not a cause for which he has any enthusiasm. Barack Obama has generally avoided the topic too but, when pushed in a recent interview, stated that religious instruction should be provided by parents and that it is ‘a mistake to try to cloud the teaching of science with theories that frankly don’t hold up to scientific inquiry’, by which one can assume he meant creationism and ‘Intelligent Design’.
So, although the next incumbent of the White House is certain to be someone who, unlike Bryan or Huckabee, believes in evolution (as well as God), the fact that the question is still asked of presidential hopefuls speaks volumes about the historical role of Christian fundamentalism in shaping American political culture.
ShareThis
David Domke is Professor of Communication and Head of Journalism at the University of Washington. Kevin Coe is a doctoral candidate in Speech Communication at the University of Illinois. They are authors of the The God Strategy: How Religion Became a Political Weapon in America. To learn more about the book check out their handy website here, to read more posts by them click here. In the post below they bid farewell to Mike Huckabee.
On Tuesday, former Arkansas Governor Mike Huckabee finally gave up on his bid to win the GOP presidential nomination. Let us be among the first to say good riddance. (more…)
Share This
I love the book Miss Lady Bird's Wildflowers. It is such a beautiful book. And if I'd had a copy in hand this past week, I would have reviewed it for my own site!
Becky,
I wish I had one at hand because the orange flower on the cover is exactly the flower I saw for mile after beautiful mile along the freeway yesterday!
I have cataloged the book so many time, I should have it memorized but, alas, I do not.