The Irony of Evangelicalism

"For many [Iowa] Republican caucus participants, faith was a determining factor. More than eight in 10 Huckabee supporters said they are born again or evangelical Christians, compared to less than half of those who supported his rival Mitt Romney, the former Massachusetts governor. Nearly two-thirds of Huckabee backers also said it was very important that their candidate share their religious beliefs, compared to about one in five of Romney's."

The last sentence above is perhaps the most intriguing and ironic factoid I read about Huckabee's caucus win in Iowa yesterday. What's intriguing is that it is so telling, but why one would want to confess that about themselves, I do not know. What's ironic is that it is perhaps shear opposite of what the first Christians in this country, or at least the writers of the Constitution, thought most conducive for an experiment in freedom.

If I remember my history lessons accurately, Pilgrims ran from the Old World to the New because those in power in the Old World thought exactly like the two-thirds of Huckabee's Iowa caucus supporters. Thus it was that 167 years after the arrival of the Pilgrims religious liberty was enshrined in the Constitution as one of the highest ideals in the land. More than a century and a half could not erase the memory of the damage done to human dignity when a subset of a nation's citizenry believes it is important that those with power share their specific religious beliefs and sensibilities. Yet it has only taken 2 centuries more, plus 20 years to begin to do so. That's, in a word, SCARY.

Those who tout the importance of religious commonality often self-identify as "conservatives." In conservation of what? It can't be in conservation of the founding ideals of this nation. No such ideal existed. At most it's in conservation of the parts of the old that inevitably hold over into the new, but why would one want to hold over the seeds of religious intolerance and possibly even fascism? Perhaps its the conservation of notions of divinely ordained dominion aggrandized by unfortunate misappropriations of biblical imagery used in furtherance of political ends (e.g. America as Reagan's "city on a hill") and validated by a misinterpretation of the biblical commission to "possess the land." I find neither conservatism nor liberalism useful ideological constructs in a global, 21st century, post-modern world. Most of the world that conservatism is trying to conserve and from which liberalism is trying to liberate itself no longer exists, accept in instances where shear stubbornness or abuse of power have preserved it. Nevertheless, if one is going to conserve in a democracy, shouldn't it be the conservation of something that exists for the good of more than just those trying to keep it?

The further irony is that Huckabee presents as a populist. I pray it is an authentic persona. Sure, he has strong religious convictions. Some of his views based upon those convictions sound downright kooky when exploited by the unforgiving hands of an unsympathetic media. Perhaps they are no more kooky than my own (okay, maybe a little more). However, he seems to have reconciled himself to the fact that in a democracy his convictions are not the "one ring to rule them all." He does not seem predisposed to legislate his belief system upon everyone else. Moreover, he expresses believable compassion and actionable concern for those unlike himself, which has not been a trademark of the typical religiously or otherwise motivated conservative.

Don't get me wrong: I don't agree with many of Huckabee's policies (e.g. imigration reform, the war on the Middle East and the bodily autonomy of women). But in Huckabee I find a conservative with motivations beyond his own self-interests. That may be ironic, but it's also refreshing.