Land’s Miscalculation

Dr. Richard Land, the Ivy-league-educated president of the Southern Baptists' (clunkily named) Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission (back in my college days, this was known as the Christian Life Commission, or maybe that was just in Texas, but I digress), wrote a much debated article recently about our moral responsibilities as voters. He uses a barely coded hypothetical election pitting 3 candidates: one you agree with 100%, one 80%, and only 10%. But what if the 100% candidate is doubtful to actually win the election? What should you do? In Land's calculation, you obviously have a moral obligation to support the 80 per center and get him or her into office.

I think that's a reasonable formulation, as the hypothetical goes. But it's obvious that he's referring to the 2008 presidential election, attempting to justify the reticence of conservative Christian leaders to support the candidacy of Mike Huckabee, the apparent 100% guy. Our 80% "hero" here is probably Fred Thompson, or perhaps Mitt Romney, and I would guess that the 10% dud is Hillary.

Dr. Land is a very smart guy and I respect him and the work of the ERLC. But I think he makes a serious miscalculation here. Two, actually. Some might quibble with the hypothetical itself, passionately arguing that we should not compromise principle. These folks find themselves voting for 3^rd-party, fringe-party candidates come the general election. And that's cool with me. But let's take a deeper look at the two miscalculations, one in the context of theory, and the second in the real-world of the 2008 election.

Miscalculation #1 – The Mistake of Timing

I can't say it better than Robert George Dunn did in the comments of Land's article. Dunn writes, "Dr. Land has described the attitude or concept that is best left for the hour of voting, not the trail to the voting booth. If the voter properly practiced their responsibility, they would be doing everything within their power and ability to see to it that the candidate that has the greatest moral fiber or is of the Spirit of God is elected." It's a long time until the election, even with the front-loaded primaries this time around. We're on about Day Two of a Six Day Creation. At this stage, you rally round your 100% guy, and do whatever you can to get him electable, to build the momentum, to raise the funds to ward off opposition-definers, to spread the word.

Miscalculation #2a – Underestimating Mike Huckabee

Land has been quoted as saying that he believes Huckabee has no shot to beat Hillary Clinton in the general election. I'm not sure what tea leaves he's privy to, because I'm not aware of any national polling pitting Huckabee against Clinton. I'm not sure how meaningful it would be anyway, as Huckabee does not come in with the name recognition of a Giuliani or the celebrity of Fred Thompson. I refuse to settle for the celebrity method of picking my presidential candidates. I prefer to see a grassroots campaign, driven by winning ideas, not an accounting of who can buy the most TV ads, especially from the mega-rich. As Huckabee is demonstrating in the places where people are paying attention (noted in previous posts), he is persuading hearts and minds. He is building the momentum needed to actually win this thing.

And I don't mean just the GOP nomination; I mean the general election. I hope to write a future post about what it takes to win the general election, using the Electoral College map and the Pew Center's Political Typologies, but i am convinced that Huckabee can do it.

Miscalculation #2b – Overestimating the Front Runners

The front-runners are already well-known nationally (perhaps only Romney is not), particularly as far as their positives are concerned. If you asked the average voter about Rudy Giuliani, I bet they'd say something about 9/11. But his pro-choice views are still not well known nationally. The average voter is still conflating Fred Thompson with Admiral Painter chomping a cigar on the deck of an aircraft carrier. And yet, when pitted in head-to-head polls against any of the 3 Democratic front-runners (Hillary, Obama, and Edwards), they all get trounced. Especially against Hillary, who is even defined nationally more by her negatives than by the reformation she's gone through in her Senate career.

So it seems to me that the best hope is to find someone more compelling. Someone who can energize the right-wing base (turnout will always be key), while siphoning off enough Reagan democrats to win this thing. Such a candidate would have social conservative bona fides, but would also be able to articulate a vision for all of America that resonates with the middle class. Someone with fresh and bold ideas for lifting America to a higher place, without coming across as slick or scary. Listen and watch Mike Huckabee. He's that someone.