Thanks (big thanks) to two Matts (Stinson and Yglesias) I was finally able to read this TNR article about Dean and religion. You should, too.
It seems to be the CW that Dean’s religious impulses are, shall we say, somewhat less overt than, well, just about everybody else running for President these days. Now, here’s the sixty-four dollar question: will that matter? TNR seems to think so; Matt Yglesias is a little less sure, but he’s a tad biased – or is he? You need a scorecard to figure out who in the blogosphere is supporting who in these last days before the primaries – and Matt Stinson brings up what effect that this will have on African-Americans… which CW also says is Dean’s biggest obstacle among Democrats.
For myself? It’s certainly something that Dean is going to have to watch – not so much for himself as for his volunteer krew – but he can survive one medium to large screwup without permanent damage and if he can’t learn from mistakes it’s best for the Democrats if they learn this now and save themselves some heartache. As for the AA vote – I don’t think that getting it will be made all that harder by his secularism, provided that he at least makes a good-faith effort to blend in. Translation: Howard, put down the Jean Wyclef CD and pick up the hymnal. It’ll do you more political good in the long run.
‘Course, I’m a Republican, so can I be trusted? (wanders off, whistling)
UPDATE: The criticism implicit in the title of this post should not be taken as a commentary on the interest level inherent in the title of Matt Stinson’s post of the same name… no, no, it’s not working. Matt’s got me cold on this one.
You saying my title is boring too? š
Dean doesn’t need to feign religion; he just needs to avoid insulting believers. I remain unconvinced that he’s capable of this. (Let’s play mad libs: Dean doesn’t need to feign centrism; he just needs to avoid insulting centrists. Can he do that either?)
As for African-Americans, he’s going to win a clear majority (~90%) of their votes. The real question is whether he can appeal to them enough to get them to turn out at the polls in large numbers. And for that he’s going to have to show up in black churches and look comfortable in the setting.
Okay, so I’m veering a little off course here, but as long as we are discussing Dean’s potential for “insulting believers”, I thought it worth adding that he seems hell bent on insulting vets, too. Of course, I an referring to the whole bit of his ‘misunderstanding the question’ when asked, in writing, to complete the sentence, “My closest living relative in the armed services is…?”
His response was that his closest relative in the armed forces was his brother, who was MIA/POW in Laos, but is now presumed dead. The only problem being that his brother was never in the armed forces and was, in fact, in Laos as a peace activist. Nothing wrong with being a peace activist. Nothing at all. I would, however, agree with Tom Bevan over at RealClear Politics that there is something wrong with the whole scenario of trying to mislead the voters and portray himself as a relative of a soldier who was MIA/POW. And then, when called on his misleading statement by the editor of the local paper, to have the chutzpah to take umbrage at “one of the greatest cheap shots I’ve ever seen in journalism.”
I guess whether you think it it’s a cheap shot or not depends on your definition of “in the armed services”. Mine doesn’t include civilian tourists. Dean, however, sees things a little differently – “I don’t think it was inaccurate or misleading…”
Right.
As opposed to the ever-persistent rumors that Charlie Dean was CIA?
I don’t care much for Dean on a number of policy grounds, and I think he’s a bit slippery in a lot of his public statements, but if he can run on an even mostly secular platform without kowtowing to the religious, my respect for him will skyrocket.
Drudge right now:
Why am I not surprised?
It actually seems to be a pattern of Dean’s to say whatever sounds good, whatever his audience at the moment wants to hear. If he contradicts previous statement, *shrug*. The true believers aren’t going to care.
It seems pretty weird to me that the man seems so lacking in conviction and core beliefs, that he is so willing to change his position on just about everything, at the drop of a hat. Especially regarding religion/secularism and other personal, deeply held beliefs.
Ah, but Fredrik, the question is, how will Dean invoke Jesus? I can see it now . . . “I’m the only religious candidate who talks about my love of Jesus in front of secular audiences.”
The Howard Dean Christmas Special
I said I wasn’t going to post any more on Dean this week unless something really big hit the news. I consider this fairly newsworthy, especially considering my earlier post with the boring title (thanks Moe). For most of Christmas…
That and Southerner voters. That little bit about the confederate flag in which he said first that he wanted people who displayed it to vote for him but oh, yeah he considers it a racist symbol ā is it possible for this Far Left northeastern politician to come off as even more condescending and insulting? Well maybe that āG-d, guns, gays, and raceā spiel was a close second.
As far as Dean and religion goes, IMNHO once he let it out that his religious convictions are or were so shallow that he switched churches over a bike path, I think any future references to G-d are going to come off as patently phony and forced on his part.
It may not hurt him any further with people who have strong religious convictions, but it will hurt him with people who believe that leaders ought to have strong convictions and principles period. Qualities that seem utterly lacking in Howard Dean.
One other thing on the bike path issue. How wrongly will it rub voters that Howard Dean appears to have stronger convictions about a bike path than he does on whether the United States gets to try terrorists who murder 3,000 of our countrymen?
That in my mind is where Dean is going to have strong problems on the character issue. So far heās only been viable because heās tapped into the anger of the lunatic base of his party for whom hating George Bush isnāt an issue, itās pretty much the issue. Heās going to need to pivot and reinvent himself as a centrist governor (something belied by his actual record ā at least the unsealed portion) and to do that heās going to have to demonstrate that he has some sort of core convictions and he āreally isnāt a dove but by golly supported Desert Storm and Kosovoā because of some ānuanceā rather than simply picking his positions based on what he thinks would make him politically viable at the moment.
This IMNHO is where Bush is going to have a big advantage over Dean. Bush is, agree or disagree with him, going to be the guy who was out to defend America by doing what he thought was right. Which is why regardless of whether we find so much as a can of Raid or a picture of UBL and Saddam Hussein dancing in pink tutus together, Iraq is going to be either a big win for him or at worst a slight advantage because (with the exception of Joseph Lieberman), his opponents are coming off as unprincipled weasels who simply pick and chose their foreign policy positions based on what they think will make them more viable for the presidency without any core convictions guiding them.
On an earlier thread someone mentioned Republicans wrapping themselves up in the flag and the cross; I indicated that I thought they had it backwards. It isnāt so much that Republicans come off or need to come off as being religious and patriotic, itās more that Democrats generally come off as being either indifferent or hostile to both religion and patriotism.