Jacques Berlinerblau, of “What’s Wrong with the Society of Biblical Literature?” fame, has a new book out called Thumpin’ It: The Use and Abuse of the Bible in Today’s Presidential Politics. He has taken the opportunity to reflect the interests of this last book on the current race and has an excellent specimen in Mike Huckabee (I previously reflected about Huckabee and his “theology degree”). On his “The God Vote” column/blog at the On Faith website, Berlinerblau offers some brief, but good thoughts about Huckabee and conservative evangelical voters. Here’s a bit to get you started:
It seems doubtful, for example, that [Huckabee] will carry New Hampshire–if only because Evangelicals there do not comprise anywhere near the 38% of Republican voters that they do in Iowa. It is estimated that about 18% of the Republican electorate in New Hampshire is Evangelical (versus, incidentally, a whopping 53% in South Carolina).
It is for this reason that Tuesday’s New Hampshire primary is our friend, our teacher. It wants to help us answer a question and that question is: will Republicans and Independents with no particular investment in a biblical worldview (though with no particular disdain for it either) find something else about Huckabee that convinces them to vote for him?
What about his positions on the environment or his social agenda? Those potentially could carry some weight. What do you think?
Thanks for the comment, Mike. I don’t think that’s why so many conservative evangelical Republicans are voting for him. I think evangelicals vote for him because he presents himself as the most evangelical. I’m not sure his views on the environment would attract many conservative evangelicals, though I think the wider umbrella of evangelicals (not just conservatives on the religious right) would embrace a more progressive stance on the environment (but that wider net of evangelicals are not all Republicans). By social agenda, do you mean abortion? I suppose that is a draw for conservative evangelical Republicans. But it seems like other types of Republicans (not that I am one… I’d rather not affiliate with any political party) wouldn’t be as concerned about abortion as a litmus test issue.
Abortion is part of it, but its seemed to me that he’s more into the so called “social action” that democrats are traditionally known for (e.g. the poor).
This is an interesting article from the Chicago Tribune:
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/custom/religion/ats-ap_politics14jan06,1,6095212.story