Creationism as a GOP Litmus Test?

Posted on October 15, 2009
Filed Under Politics, Religion, Science | 21 Comments

There’s some interesting discussion about whether Creationism has become a kind of litmus test for GOP candidates. Razib, writing over at Secular Right, notes

[I]t looks like 3 of the front-runners for the G.O.P. nomination are rather frank Creationists (Palin, Huckabee and Pawlenty). I’m skeptical about any of these as likely candidates (i.e., if you had to make a bet you’re going to be surprised), but if you keep adding individuals to the list it seems likely that we’re looking at a serious probability that the G.O.P. nominee in 2012 will be a Creationist.

Greg Mayer writing at Why Evolution is True says that while Pawlenty was once thought of as a moderate Republican that’s not true anymore.

One shouldn’t think that just because one promotes Creationism that they are dumb. As Razib notes Jingal in Louisiana got a degree in biology from Brown, was accepted to Harvard Medical School, and became a Rhodes Scholar. Further, having lived in Louisiana for a while, I suspect he may have played the Creationist angle rather cynically in order to reform the government there. (Lousiana politics when I lived there was so remarkably corrupt it made some 3rd world nations look good)

I don’t know much about Jindal, beyond being skeptical that he would win the nomination. I think his national popularity was a bit too much of a cynical “we have a minority” type view rather than tied to how well he’d do as President. That said though he deserves big credit for improving Louisiana politics. Much as some fear what Obama brought out of Chicago politics I think it fair to fear what Jindal would bring from Louisiana politics though.

Romney show some real bravery last year by taking a stance at one of the debates against Creationism. No small thing to do when Evangelicals already distrusted his Mormonism. That said I think that while Romney is the strongest of the candidate that he probably won’t win just because of his image. Fair or not, he’s badly manhandled apparent flip flops. He comes off as someone who wants the Presidency too much and will say anything to get it.

The real dark horse candidate is still Huntsman. Like Romney he’s Mormon. But also like Romney much more of a moderate technocrat. And that’s a good thing. The biggest problem with the current GOP is that they appear to care little about actually governing and making sure government works well. Romney has all that the current GOP lacks. His biggest weakness (beyond his Mormonism to the Evangelical crowd) is that he is too socially moderate. Whether he’s a libertarian or not (and I’ve heard arguments both ways) he clearly is quite far from the Palin camp of social conservativism.

Can Huntsman win? I don’t know. But then the economy will have recovered by 2012 and I think any GOP candidate will have a tough time against Obama. I think Huntsman probably has a better shot than most although it would be interesting if he runs against his current boss.

Related posts:

  1. Louisiana Puts Creationism in the Schools
  2. Romney on Atheists
  3. The Problem of Romney
  4. Mormons and the Election
  5. The Politics of Pragmatism
  6. Science Under Attack?

Comments

21 Responses to “Creationism as a GOP Litmus Test?”

Huntsman is the only one from that list that I would vote for over Obama. He’s a moderate, an environmentalist, a progressive rock fan, a Mormon, and he threatened to veto an anti-evolution bill (and that threat is probably what ultimately killed it before it got to him).
He’s rational and intelligent.
If he runs, I’m guessing it will be in 2016. In any case, unlike Romney, Huntsman has my full support.
But in reality, I don’t think the current Republican party is looking for rational, intelligent, or moderate. I think both Palin and Romney have a better chance at winning that party’s nomination.

I’m not sure why Huntsman’s name is listed here. Last I checked, he was serving as Ambassador to China. The problem with the Republican Party is that it has ceased being a political party and become a fundamentalist religion. They are not, as the above poster says with great accuracy, “looking for rational, intelligent, or moderate” candidates. Only true believers need apply. I have known and worked for some great Republicans from years past. In today’s environment, they would have their kneecaps smashed by the party’s leadership.

There are so many facets to what makes a Creationist. Some creationists are also evolutionists that don’t have a mutually exclusive narrative on this issue. I really don’t care if they have a six-day earth or six-thousand earth or big bang dark matter theory that they talk about in church. Who cares? I’m more concerned if politicians want to take away my freedoms and force crazy ideologies like, oh say, Marxism, for example, Our current president likes to surround himself with people who bow at that discredited, fundamentalist, and lunatic altar.

John, I think one big problem is that there really isn’t any Republican leadership right now. There’s opposition to Obama but not a lot else.

Peter, typically when one says Creationist one means that the person rejects evolution and believes in a young Earth.

I think that when Huntsman accepted the ambassadorship he gave up any chance of being the GOP candidate in 2012. The only way that could change would be if Huntsman were to have a big dramatic split with Obama with regard to China policy, but that doesn’t seem to be Huntsman’s style.

Creationism isn’t the “litmus test” of the GOP, Conservatism without compromise is. That it includes many Creationists is just part of the package. Huntsman or any moderate Republican doesn’t have a chance this time around, Romney included. You are right, the Republicans don’t have a leader this time around, and that is they way that many grassroots Republicans want it. The People are the leaders and they are trying very hard to call the shots.

While I am sure there is some tiny minority somewhere that would like Creationism to be a litmus test for the GOP, the idea is so immensely self-defeating that it would be hard to wonder if they were not secret agents for the other side.

Other than that, who really cares if a presidential candidate believes in some vaguely enlightened version of creationism? Compared to the stuff that Obama’s pastor actively promoted, it would be like a footnote to a footnote.

In addition, I think that Huntsman’s chances of ever being the Republican nominee are nil. He occupies the same space within the party as McCain does, and that position didn’t exactly turn out to be a roaring success. If McCain were elected, he would only have prolonged the GOP malaise for another four years, and in the worst possible way.

The number one concern most Republicans have with Romney is that he is too much like Huntsman or McCain, i.e. too susceptible to selling out his party in search of some noble third way. Romney’s role in the Massachusetts brand of health care reform is the primary reason for that.

Romney’s problem in 2002 was being squeezed from the middle by McCain and from the evangelical crowd by Huckabee. Without a squishy RINO to steal independent votes from his left, he has to be considered the front runner for the 2012 GOP nomination. If Huntsman entered the race, that would change, and if both got traction (which is unlikely) both would lose.

So tell me again why Iowa and New Hampshire have a divine right to decide the GOP nominee? New Hampshire used to be a conservative state, and Iowa rather more moderate. Now we have two squishy states dragging the GOP down with them. Could any state be less representative of the GOP than the farm subsidy capital of the world?

Mark, I agree. But then like JetBoy said, there’s this movement to allow no compromise (whatever that means). I’d note that Democrats regained power by looking at who was likely to win in districts. Admittedly this led to the blue dog Democrats that the left is so upset with at the moment. But let’s be honest – you’ll never elect a San Francisco styled Democrat in say Utah. Yet we have a Democratic congressman.

What Republicans need to do is field candidates who are likely to win given the nature of the districts they are running in. Then Republicans need to do a much better job actually standing for something. i.e. engaging in ideas. Something that, outside of a bit of fear mongering, we haven’t seen for quite some time. We know they are against Obama but not what they are for. Without that you’ll get identity politics which is why things like Creationism count.

BTW – I’m not convinced Huntsman is out as a candidate although I think he’s loyal enough that he probably wouldn’t run.

“We know they are against Obama but not what they are for.”

Why do they have to be FOR anything? However, what they are for (or at least what they should be for) is smaller government. I and many other grassroots GOP would love to vote for a government obstructionist, or what is popularly known as a party of “NO!” Ron Paul could very well have been the 2008 Republican nominee, but he held a position on Iraq that was strongly not held by the majority of Republican voters. The Republicans need a Ron Paul without his political liabilities.

If all one wants is smaller government with no concern for the running government then definitely the GOP of Palin and company is your party. I want a small well run government. The problem, in my view, of too many in the GOP right now is that they don’t care about the running of government part.

As far as the Republicans having a leadership vacuum, this is the nature of the party not in power. The Democrats had the same problem when the Republicans were in power. Obama is the perfect example. In the years before his running for office he held no leadership position in the Democratic Party. Let the Republicans take the 20010 election and there will be candidates crawling out of the walls. I hope Sen. Thune is one of them.

I know a number of you are from Utah and are LDS, as I am, but can’t you guys throw your net a little wider than LDS politicians?

As far as running the government, making it smaller is an important step in running it well.

Rich

What do you mean by a moderate Republican? The party is split between Moderate Republicans and Conservative Republicans. The two share a number of principles but there are principles which Moderates hold that Conservatives do not. One is the nature of the Constitution. Moderate Republicans hold that the Constitution is a living document to be constantly reinterpreted. Conservatives believe the Constitution is a contract between government and people. Like any contract, to change it requires an amendment to the contract.

Therefore, if you are calling someone a moderate Republican are you saying he holds the ideals of moderate Republicans? Or, is he a conservative without holding “extreme” positions with the conservative wing?

Rich

I think there’s much more diversity than “moderate” vs. “conservative” captures.

Regarding Huntsman and Romney – I see it as more coincidental they are Mormon. I have grave issues with Romney due to his pandering and flip flopping. Huntsman just happens to be close to my ideal candidate in a number of ways.

In one way one of the biggest disappointments with the Republican party right now is that few of the figures out there as potential leaders are appealing, the way Obama was for Dems in 2004. Huntsman was, prior to being named Ambassador, putting out a Presidential campaign and was mentioned a lot in various press reports. However there was an Evangelical distaste for him on numerous levels.

16 Rich Knapton on October 22nd, 2009 4:20 pm

There is a lot of diversity in either wing, moderate or conservative. Nevertheless, there is an actual wing of the party called moderate. When you use the term ‘moderate’ are you referencing this wing of the party? In other words, how do you define ‘moderate’ as in “He is a moderate?”

Rich

I like Jim Matheson (D) – he voted against cap and trade, while sitting on the committee that was in charge of it(!). That takes courage.

The views that most typify GOP moderates these days are liberal views on social issues such as abortion, amnesty for illegal immigrants, and sometimes health care and environmental issues. Most are typically relatively solid on free market economics and the need for limited government. If not, they would be Democrats. Notable exceptions (Scozzafava anyone?) excluded, of course.

Mark, given his constituency I’m not sure that took too much courage. Had he voted for it he’d have had a good chance of losing. I think you’ll find he votes with Republicans nearly as much as Democrats. In many states he’d be a conservative Republican. It’s just in Utah that he’s the “liberal.”

I don’t know how others define moderate. I define it by viewing any policy issue and noting that there are people strongly opposed and strongly for and a large stretch in the middle who like the policy with modifications. If a person favors enough middling views on most policies I call them a moderate.

So someone like Chris Cannon was very conservative, yet on immigration he was very moderate. (Partially why he lost re-election) I’d never call Chris a moderate though simply because it’s a single policy he was moderate on. (Actually he was moderate on a few other views as well)

Clark, I think you underestimate the amount of social pressure that other members of Congress not to mention the Washington establishment and the media at large can bring to bear on an outlier in a political party, especially a right leaning one.

In this case we cannot tell the true extent without knowing Matheson’s private feelings on the subject. If he thinks that cap and trade in the form it came out of his committee is a wonderful thing, then his resistance to the pressure of his partisan peers would certainly be more a matter of self-interest than genuine moral courage.

However, as a general rule, I suggest that partisan outliers such as the Blue Dog Democrats typically have political inclinations that very much match the electorate that selected them. Any electorate has every motivation to select the real McCoy rather than someone whose votes are little more than a matter of political opportunism. Not that they are always successful, of course. The recent election is an excellent case in point.

I don’t mean to imply that Matheson doesn’t believe what he votes. (I have no way of knowing but he doesn’t strike me as the cynical pandering type) My point is more that his district would select someone for whom it doesn’t require a lot of bravery here. Maybe I am underestimating the pressure of his peers in congress. But I think you are underestimating the pressure from the voters himself. Indeed this is why I think Obama’s real struggle has always been with Blue Dog Democrats and thats why I think Rahm Emanuel was brought on last year. (And I’m pretty sure I said so at the time) Emanuel has the ability to up the pressure you mentioned. But I think even with Emanuel’s tricks and tactics that the voters still have a great deal of influence – probably more.

Many commentators attribute the success of the Democratic party in congressional races in the past two elections to recruiting conservative candidates in conservative districts.

The liberal Democrats cannot have it both ways – they either learn how to compromise in the context of a more politically diverse majority, or live with a smaller number of ideological diehards.

So I can’t say I have a lot of sympathy for the inability of Emanuel or whoever to demand perfect ideological conformity within his party. Politics is the art of the possible, as they say, and a lot of left leaning Democrats seem to be in denial on that point.

Leave a Reply