Deal W. Hudson

Can Fred Thompson Win Over Religious Conservatives?

Can Fred Thompson Win Over Religious Conservatives?

The Window for August 31, 2007

Deal W. Hudson

Former Senator, Watergate attorney, movie actor, and TV star of “Law & Order,” Fred Thompson will officially enter the presidential race next Thursday, September 6.

It’s remarkable after his bumpy start – with the turnover in his campaign staff and the delay of his official announcement -- that Thompson is polling only a single percentage point behind Rudy Giuliani, 23 % to 24%, according to the weekly Rasmussen Reports.

Thompson enters the race polling ahead of Mitt Romney at 13% and John McCain at 12%. (Romney’s support has stayed in the 12% to 14% range for ten straight weeks.)

The key to Thompson’s candidacy will be his ability to attract and motivate the religious conservatives who provided the margin of victory for George W. Bush in 2000 and 2004.

Many of those voters cannot warm to the pro-abortion Giuliani and have yet to embrace Romney, whose pro-life convictions are of a recent vintage.

Thompson’s appeal to Christian voters hasn’t been helped by the March 28 comments by James Dobson reported in U. S. News & World Report: "Everyone knows he's conservative and has come out strongly for the things that the pro-family movement stands for," Dobson said of Thompson. "[But] I don't think he's a Christian; at least that's my impression."

The reporter, Dan Gilgoff, did not call Dobson about Thompson – Dobson called him, unsolicited.

Thompson’s campaign denied the accusation, telling Gilgoff, "Thompson is indeed a Christian. He was baptized into the Church of Christ."

Two days later, a spokesman for Dobson released a statement acknowledging Thompson’s profession of faith but added, "Thompson hasn't clearly communicated his religious faith, and many Evangelical Christians might find this a barrier to supporting him."

The Dobson flap hasn’t kept some prominent religious leaders from gravitating toward the Thompson camp. On July 23, Scott Helman reported in the Boston Globe that Gary Bauer, former presidential candidate himself, and Tony Perkins, head of the Family Research Council, are moving in Thompson’s direction.

"I see a lot in him to be encouraged about," Perkins said in the Boston Globe interview. "I think he stands the best chance of getting Evangelical support."

Evangelical support is crucial to gaining the GOP nomination. They remain the most loyal supporters of the GOP in spite of President Bush’s low popularity. According to a January 2007 survey by the Pew Research Center, 64% of religiously-active Evangelicals will vote for the Republican presidential nominee.

The weakest support for the GOP came from non-religious voters and Black Protestants.

The religiously-active Catholic (non-Latino) support for the GOP was measured at 38%, falling dramatically from the 52% attained in the 2004 election.

Thompson has already demonstrated his awareness of the Catholic vote by being the only candidate to attend the National Catholic Prayer Breakfast in Washington, D. C. in April. The 6’ 6” Thompson was easy to see at a head table with his wife Jeri and two small children, one born as late as November of last year. (His forty-year old wife is a former political consultant, with a stint at the Republican National Committee. Thompson is sixty-six.)

Attracting the loyal Evangelical support and reinvigorating the observant Catholic vote will be the one-two punch Thompson will need to win the nomination. The early inroads made by Romney and Giuliani among religious leaders appears to have peaked. Sen. Brownback and Gov. Huckabee are stuck in low single digits in spite of their good showing in the Ames Straw Poll.

Religious conservatives are not the type of voters disposed toward compromise – they are waiting for a leader who will comport with their sense of political mission. It remains to be seen whether Fred Thompson can assume that role.

Thompson doesn’t have Romney’s problem of a recent declaration of a pro-life position. His pro-life voting record was rated 100% by National Right to Life while he was in the Senate. And in a video sent to the NRTL convention in June, Thompson said, "On abortion related votes I've been 100%. On stem cell research, I'm for adult stem cell research, not stem cell research where embryos of unborn children are destroyed. It looks to me like there is a lot of promising developments as far as adult stem cell research is concerned anyway, and we don't need to go down that other road."

He also described partial-birth abortion as “infanticide.”

Thompson’s position on the other key issue for religious conservatives is less straight-forward.
On August 17, Thompson told CNN he would try to overturn Roe v. Wade if elected, and would seek for a constitutional amendment protecting states from being forced to honor gay marriages performed in other states.
“I don’t think that one state ought to be able to pass a law requiring gay marriage or allowing gay marriage and have another state be required to follow along.”
This prompted a clarification from the Thompson campaign sent the same day to National Review Online:
“Thompson believes that states should be able to adopt their own laws on marriage consistent with the views of their citizens. 

He does not believe that one state should be able to impose its marriage laws on other states, or that activist judges should construe the Constitution to require that.

If necessary, he would support a constitutional amendment prohibiting states from imposing their laws on marriage on other states.

Fred Thompson does not support a constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage.”
So the bottom line is this: Thompson’s position allows a state to mandate gay marriage as long as it cannot be exported to another state.
His lack of support for a federal ban on gay marriage led to a statement by Gary Bauer defending Thompson." A number of us have met privately with Senator Thompson, and he's made it absolutely clear that he opposes same-sex marriage” (American Family News Network, August 23, 2007).
Debates such as this will be commonplace for Fred Thompson as his outreach to religious conservatives intensifies with his official announcement on September 6.
Unifying that support will be one of the central challenges of his campaign. Whether his public political voice will turn out to be as “presidential” as the voice of his TV and film persona remains to be seen.
____________________________
To make a comment on this Window, please visit my “Theocon” blog at HYPERLINK "http://dealwhudson.typepad.com" http://dealwhudson.typepad.com or send me an e-mail at HYPERLINK "mailto:wyatthudson@aol.com" wyatthudson@aol.com

Polygamy in Canada

Deal and Marjorie,

I was not aware - but it hardly surprised me - that the debate on polygamy is now beginning to get traction in Canada, on the west coast of all places.

During the last federal campaign (2006), when I was running as a conservative candidate, I thought that recognizing fiscal and social benefits for same-sex couples would slow this whole torrent agitated notably by the left.  How was I naive...

But this issue of polygamy is one of the aspects I reflected upon when discussing with people.  After all, if we expand marriage from its traditional definition, what prevents people from distorting it at will?  What now comes from a Mormon sect may well emerge from some radical Islam groups in the future, couldn't it?  In one word, once the door is open, it's hard to close it.

Recently, the Canadian parliament voted not to re-open the marriage issue here (i.e. same-sex marriage remains).  Depending on where this polygamy issue goes, the marriage issue could return on the front scene of our debates.

Unfortunately for the defenders of marriage, Canada does not have an infrastructure comparable to the Christian Right or the conservative movement to advance, defend and make prevail this agenda.  We can observe the emergence of an embryonic conservative movement, with think tanks, blogs and political gains, but the left remains very strong - not to say preeminent - notably in British Columbia and also in Central Canada (Ontario and Quebec).  And these three provinces are the ones with most seats in the House of Commons...

Let's stay tuned on this issue...  And thanks for bringing it up to our attention Marjorie.

Polygamy on the Religious Left

Deal Hudson

Marjorie, as I was mulling over the prospect of polygamy in Canada, I recalled that two of the leading figures of the "Religious Left" do NOT find a normative view of marriage in Scriptures.

If you read the recent books by Rev. Jim Wallis (God's Politics) and Rabbi Michael Lerner (The Left Hand of God), you will be told that the ONLY normative teaching in Scripture, especially in the New Testament, is caring for the poor. 

None of the other moral teachings that are usually accepted as normative are accepted as such by Wallis and Lerner.  They explicitly leave the door open to homosexual marriage. 

They cite  polygamy in the Old Testament as proof that the "Biblical view" of marriage is not fixed.

They don't, however, in my recollection, advocate a return to polygamy.

My only question is, why not?

Polygamy Debate Makes Same-Sex Advocates Nervous

Deal Hudson

Marjorie, your post on polygamy in Canada will surely attract some sly comments from our friend in the frozen North, Marc Nadeau.

In the meantime, I would only point out that it will be interesting to see how the same-sex marriage advocates turn to some sort of natural law argument to ward off polygamy while defending themselves.

That argument will very likely be  that marriage is naturally shared by two people rather than three or more. 

Once the same-sex marriage advocates readmit the notion of nature to the argument they are doomed.

Watching Polygamy in Canada

Marjorie Campbell, marjorie@marjoriecampbell.com

I don't watch Big Love - the highly-touted HBO drama of a man and his three wives, now entering its second season.  But I am watching polygamy in Canada.  In case you're not, let me fill you in.

Earlier this month, a British Columbia special prosecutor couldn't find any unhappy women in the polygamous community of Bountiful to pursue criminal charges against the merry-married men of that town's renegade Mormon sect.  Instead, Richard Peck determined that "the time had finally come for the B.C. government to challenge the law banning polygamy itself by asking the courts to rule on its constitutional validity." 

Now this should be interesting!

Already, The Globe and Mail - a nationally distributed newspaper that supported gay marriage - strained to claim "polygamy is different," gay marriage does not give "legitimacy to polygamy."  Anyone with sense knows this is nonsense.  As one commentator quickly replied, "If, as same-sex marriage proponents successfully argued, marriage is simply a social construct not based on any core biological reality, and if what constitutes a family is just a matter of adults' personal preferences, why should polygamy be excluded as an option?"

Ground work for legalizing polygamy was laid last year with a report from the polygamy project of the federal Justice Department recommending rescission of Canada's 1892 criminal law against polygamy.  One of the researchers, who believes that the ban would fail a legal challenge, charged, "Why criminalize the behaviour? We don't criminalize adultery.  In light of the fact that we have a fairly permissive society ... why are we singling out that particular form of behaviour for criminalization?”

Ahhh.  It's "not fair", eh?  Now, where have I heard that before?

Bishops Contradict Catechism on Immigration Policy

Deal Hudson

The following comment was just sent by Chrysostom 15:

"The interesting thing is the the Catechism of the Catholic Church says that those crossing the borders should respect the rights of nations to determine laws regarding who can enter."

When I read that my first thought was that the  core of the argument supporting USCCB's immigration policy contradicts the Catechism.

So I had a look.

#2241

"The more prosperous nations are obliged, to the extent they are able, to welcome the foreigner in search of the security and the means of livelihood which he cannot find in his country of origin. Public authorities should see to it that the natural right is respected that places a guest under the protection of those who receive him.

Political authorities, for the sake of the common good for which they are responsible, may make the exercise of the right to immigrate subject to various juridical conditions, especially with regard to the immigrants' duties toward their country of adoption. Immigrants are obliged to respect with gratitude the material and spiritual heritage of the country that receives them, to obey its laws and to assist in carrying civic burdens." (Emphasis added)

Chrysostom 15 got it right! 

But there is a wrinkle.  The text above appears to be addressing explicitly the obligation of an immigrant after he or she enters the country -- "the country that receives them...."

I think it is reasonable to infer from that passage, however, that obeying the laws would be a requirement of an immigrant not yet received by a country. 

Thus, the romanticism attached to the immigrant sneaking over the Texas border in the USCCB video definitely contradicts the Catechism on this point.

Yet, I did not find a clear contradiction on the issue of whether the natural right to work trumps the right of a nation to secure its borders, which, to me, seems ridiculous.

Notice that the Catechism denotes that developed nations are obliged to welcome the "foreigner" only "to the extent they are able."

I did not find that qualification in USCCB material, rather the attitude that the US is only trying to protect its wealth by protecting the borders.

A word about John McCain

Marc Nadeau

Deal, a few weeks ago - if my memory is correct - you posted something about Senator and presidential contender John McCain's recent book, "Hard Call".  I've picked up a copy last week and I intend to have a look at it.  So far, what I hear about it is interesting.

Last week-end, I was nevertheless not surprised to read a piece, in the "New York Times" about the age issue:

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/08/25/us/politics/25mccain.html?_r=1&oref=slogin

True, John McCain is far from kindergarten.  But in terms of experience and interest, I think he's way more attractive than some other candidates in the pack.

The author of the article makes a good job at exposing that age is one thing, but that health and experience also must be taken into consideration.  Not long after becoming President of France, François Mitterrand was diagnosed with cancer.  That did not stop him from spending 14 years at the Élysée.  And while many critics are harsh with his record, I personally think that he was a great public figure.  Certainly more appealing than Jacques Chirac if you want my personal opinion.

But there's more.

Do we remember that Georges Clémenceau was 76 when he was called to serve for a second time as chief of the French government at the height of World War I in 1917?  Do we remember that Winston Churchill was 77 - yes, 77! - when he first won an election as Prime minister in 1951 (the first time he entered 10 Downing Street, in May 1940, he had not been selected by the electorate but by Parliament).  One last example, de Gaulle.  In 1958, when he returned to power, he was 68.  He was 79 when he left for retirement.  About the same age John McCain would be when he would leave the White House on January 20th, 2017 - that is, if he serves two mandates.

And there are other examples, but time and space do not permit me to go further.

What does it say?  Age should certainly not be the only criterion by which we judge a candidate.  While being 33, I observe people who are way older than me but who could outsmart me anytime on the running rink I frequently visit. 

If John McCain has to leave the place to somebody else, so be it.  But not because he has acquired a hardly won and rich life experience.  History regroups too many figures who achieved great things in the grand age.

Goodbye to Summer

Deal Hudson

I was cleaning up the family PC after my daughter Hannah's departure to college and I found a remarkable picture.

It represents to me the joys of summer, those moments we have with friends and family when we put aside the cares and affairs of the world. 

I hope you like it. My daughter is on the left, her best friend Liz on the right.  (Click to enlarge)

Bishops Botch Argument About Immigrants

Deal Hudson

I recently attended a dinner where a Catholic bishop (no need to mention his name) presented the argument of the USCCB (United States Catholic Conference of Bishops) in support of immigrants. 

The presentation was half-hearted, perhaps because the argument is so easily undone. 

The bishop's comments were preceded by a USCCB video of a group of Mexicans trying to sneak across the Texas border.  The video completely romanticized their effort and left the impression that the U.S. and its border guards are villains. 

There was never any mention of the fact that they were attempting to break the law. 

As the bishop was speaking I read through the USCCB packet of material entitled "Justice for Immigrants: A Journey of Hope."  The narrative piles one abstraction on top of another until you come to the following, the crux of the argument, which is why it does not work.

"The Church recognizes that all the goods of the earth belong to all people.  When persons cannot find employment in their country of origin to support themselves and their families, they have the right to find work elsewhere in order to survive.  Sovereign nations should provide ways to accommodate this right." (Emphasis added)

Rights arguments often paint themselves in a corner like this.  I read this section aloud and pointed out to the bishop that it infers "the right to work trumps the right of a country to secure its borders."

He responded, saying it "didn't trump the right of a country to protect its borders," but what else could he say. He was committed to the company line on immigration. 

The "Justice for Immigrants" campaign, a huge financial effort of the USCCB, is based upon many other examples of faulty logic and just plain old bad philosophy. 

I told the bishop afterward that I was sympathetic with the effort, that I was out of step with conservatives on this issue. 

I also told him that I thought the USCCB arguments were part of the problem and that better arguments could be made. 

He could only look at me with a helpless look in his eye.

I understood. 

 

Mary Gordon Writes About Her Traditional Catholic Mother

Deal Hudson

Mary Gordon has published a new book worthy of our notice.

Circling My Mother: A Memoir is Gordon's portrait of her deeply religious mother, Anna Gagliano. 

What makes this interesting is that Gordon belongs to the generation of New York Catholic intellectuals who embraced fully the "spirit of Vatican II." 

According to the reviewer, Gordon's mother was a traditional Catholic formed by the rites and rituals of the pre-Vatican II world.

The review indicates that Gordon allows her mother to emerge without being refracted through the daughter's bias.

From the review:

But the book’s core, and its most original chapter, delves into Gordon’s mother’s platonic relationship with several priests. When Gordon was a child, clerical visits “were anticipated, treasured, like the visit of a movie star to a small town.” Maybe it’s because of the recent scandals, but people today don’t write much about these friendships, which are richer and stranger than secular or romantic ones. “For Catholic women, priestly celibacy scumbled the matte palette of wistful spinster dreams,” Gordon writes. “Because there was no possibility of marriage as the end of this romance ... the dance was performed on a small, intricate set of parquets.” There is Father John Marie, who ministered to African-American children in South Carolina; and Father Reginald, bishop of the Philippines. There’s Father Bertrand, who has a “Richard Burton quality” and drinks highballs; after her father dies, Gordon asks him to be her spiritual father. Father Dermot is the most glamorous. When Gordon first meets him, he drives up in a Karmann Ghia, the first foreign car she’s seen. He leaves the Passionist order and becomes a “cowboy priest” working among Indians in New Mexico. He fails at everything he attempts and eventually ends up living with his brother. Gordon’s mother and her friends make pilgrimages to Father Dermot each summer. “They came to him as loyal courtiers would to a ruined prince in exile.”

Whenever I have come across Mary Gordon's writing in the New York Review of Books and elsewhere, I have been impressed by her capacity for detachment, of treating the object before her as worthy of being described in its own terms.

This is a trait missing from the writing of most major intellectuals, where everything has been reduced to the search for a political meaning.