Democracy in America

American politics

Back off, pastors

The people's choice

Dec 30th 2011, 14:24 by E.G. | AUSTIN

LAST week Michele Bachmann confirmed that Bob Vander Plaats, the president of the evangelical Family Leader, had asked her to drop out of the presidential race and throw her support behind Rick Santorum or Rick Perry. And yesterday Rick Santorum flatly rejected a suggestion, again from a handful of evangelical leaders, that he and Ms Bachmann should merge their campaigns in the hope of consolidating the social conservative voting bloc.

May I just say: Jiminy, that is inappropriate. While such deals and understanding are common enough at the beginning of an election cycle, at this stage, days before the Iowa caucus, it's quite offensive. As indecisive as the Republican primary voters may have been this year, they're hardly displaying collective irrationality. None of the Republican candidates has made a dispositive case for his or her candidacy yet. That's why they're campaigning. And even if voters were being irrational, that would be their right. This is a democracy, not a political pageant sponsored by the Wiggletuck Methodist Megachurch (or any other interest group). Ms Bachmann and Mr Santorum have worked doggedly during this year, and their supporters have put millions of dollars and thousands of hours into their campaigns. Regardless of whether you like their candidacies, they both have the right to be there, and as undemocratic as the Iowa caucus may be, it's the voters who have the right to decide the winner, not the pastors.

Readers' comments

The Economist welcomes your views. Please stay on topic and be respectful of other readers. Review our comments policy.

Sort:

Midwest Mike

All the national news media is flocking to Vander Plaats as if he is some kind of power broker. They don't say that he couldn't even get the GOP nomination to run for office. He tried to be Governor of Iowa, twice. His influence is being overblown because the clout of the Evangelicals is being exaggerated by a superficial news media. After reading/listening to the national new media, you would think that Iowa was part of the "Bible Belt." Iowa is very mainstream. Much political maneuvering is not being reported. Many Iowa GOP types, not just the "bible thumpers," want to stop Romney.

DJ Glasnost

Bachmann might be legally obligated to bow out in deference to one of her male opponents if she signed that marriage pledge or takes literal biblical interpretations seriously.

teacup775

Where to begin..

" This is a democracy, not a political pageant sponsored by the Wiggletuck Methodist Megachurch (or any other interest group). "

Can you please add the two party system to this most excellent aspiration?

"Regardless of whether you like their candidacies, they both have the right to be there, and as undemocratic as the Iowa caucus may be, it's the voters who have the right to decide the winner, not the pastors."

The caucus is undemocratic but the voters decide. Statements like this make me think Orwell was right.

But anyway, the pastors are barking up the wrong tree. They should have the discussion with her husband, who by definition is the head of the family household.

k.a.gardner

E.G., More importantly in the Bachmann campaign saga than what the pastor of Wiggletuck Methodist Megachurch might have said last week is yesterday's bombshell.

Michele Bachmann is railing against Ron Paul and Kent Sorenson, who left his post as head of her Iowa campaign effort to go work for her rival instead.

Presidential hopeful Bachmann implied that Paul, who is running much stronger in Iowa, bought off her key staffer a week before the state's caucuses.

"Kent Sorenson personally told me he was offered a large sum of money to go to work for the Paul campaign," Bachmann said in a statement to Fox News.

Read more celebrity gossip at: http://www.thehollywoodgossip.com/2011/12/michele-bachmann-iowa-campaign...

teacup775 in reply to k.a.gardner

Bachman aught to be reminded that monetary reward is a sign of God's favor. She aught to shut up and pray more, 'cause obviously Paul has got more prayin mojo than that cheap faithless hussy and obviously Sorenson is showing good old fashion individualistic entrepreneurial spirit. She was expecting loyalty? That's nothing but a code word for socialism.

k.a.gardner in reply to teacup775

Whatever will we do when E.G.'s colleague from Iowa City starts reporting on caucus pageantry next week?

Bachmann ought to be reminded that she told CNN's Wolf Blitzer that the $30 billion F-15 sale to Saudi Arabia was concerning but understood the president's motivation. She could say no more because of her position on the House intelligence committee.

As to her husband, I've heard he's a bit effeminate. I wish she would just get back to work. I can't wait until congress reconvenes in January!

RestrainedRadical

Sure, they have the right to be there. And people have the right to petition candidates to drop out. I think it's senseless at this point days before the Iowa caucus but nothing wrong with the concept.

Brian Dell

It's no more inappropriate than asking Ralph Nader to not run against Al Gore and let GWB run up the middle.

What's "offensive" is pointing the finger at "pastors" and suggesting that they should not to point out to social conservatives, including the candidates themselves, that unless they unify behind a single candidate they will ultimately be under-represented in terms of delegates at next year's nominating convention.

May I point out that on the 28th Erick Erickson over at Redstate denounced Santorum saying "his rise hurts Bachmann, Gingrich, and Perry in Iowa — all of whom have better organizations and better shots beyond Iowa"? Is someone going to whine to Erickson about how Santorum has "the right to be there" and "it's the voters who have the right to decide the winner"? Come on. I know this blog leans left-liberal but this sort of snobbery against "pastors" who remind candidates that their supporters are interested in advancing an ideology or movement as opposed to the particular ambitions of the candidate is not what I expect from the Economist.

anarchteacher

Don’t be fooled by the mainstream media’s disingenuous disinformation campaign to marginalize Ron Paul’s pro-peace, pro-Constitution message.

http://www.youtube.com/embed/soHAOVZzXtA?rel=0

Do the votes in the Iowa Caucuses matter?

http://www.youtube.com/embed/ej5_rZof7MA?rel=0

http://www.youtube.com/embed/0fyRVa4lzRo?rel=0

What do grass-roots African-Americans really think about the “vicious racist” Ron Paul?

http://www.youtube.com/embed/WhxJ1XUGLR0?rel=0

What do active duty service men and women really think about the “isolationist appeaser” Ron Paul?

http://www.youtube.com/embed/dAVoYciURoU?rel=0

What do veterans really think about the “uncaring and uncompassionate” Ron Paul?

http://www.youtube.com/embed/f_qBSow4FrE?rel=0

What do women really think about the “hateful misogynist” Ron Paul?

LaContra in reply to anarchteacher

I hope you aren't a Ron Paul volunteer in Iowa secretly scribbling your Paulite nonsense on the TE forums!

Because you know the new rules as reported in the NYT!
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/12/29/us/politics/ron-pauls-young-iowa-volun...

To look, dress, shave, sound and behave in a way that will not jeopardize Mr. Paul’s chances.
To cover up tattoos and that faces should be fresh-shaved or beards neatly trimmed,
Wear only nice clothes that could be described as “business casual.”
No liquor, no drugs and no “fraternizing in the dorms, nothing like that.”

Indeed, if in doubt you apparently should ask yourself...
“What would Ron Paul do?”

(Oh dear!...and they wonder why its branded a CULT)

....And of course the Paulite Volunteer Zombies are under orders not to speak to journalists or make postings on social media sites about their activities in Iowa.

Free speech?
Not if Ron Paul says otherwise kid

So apparently Paul is quite willing to sacrifice liberty and freedom, on the well worn alter of political expediency and his supporters are more than willing to simply 'do as they are told' by a political authority figure.

So much for the winds of political change

WhiskyTangoFoxtrot

Well since we're discussing rights, it's also within Bob Vander Plaats's rights to suggest that Bachmann should drop out. Bachmann doesn't have to listen by any means, but he does have the right to say it.

Sure, in a Democracy we all have the right to conspire against the voters. And we all have the right to find it sordid if he does.

What keeps perplexing me is I spent a lot of time in rural Iowa and I don't know any of the people who seem to be such a prime target in the primary. Are all the votes cast in Sioux City and Des Moines?

Yeah, I can't see anything especially wrong with this, despite my dislike for evangelical politics. If anything, it's much better than the backroom pressure that is the essence of most political happenings.

But I think the various religious leaders who want to play around in politics are making a mistake, at least if they actually believe what they preach and care about the long-term strength of their faith. I believe that the lack of an established Church in the US has played a significant role in the continued vibrancy of religion in this country.

Also, I think of Jesus as an ascetic-apocalyptic-anarchist, and any kind of political machinations in His name seem inappropriate.

rewt66

Is E.G. upset because it's pastors doing it, or is he upset because they're doing it *now*? If the former, then E.G. needs to back off; pastors have as much right to care about political outcomes as, say, community organizers do.

But if the issue is *when* they said this (right before Iowa), then E.G. has a bit of a point. Let Iowa happen. See what it tells us. This move by the pastors is either too soon or too late.

hedgefundguy

The average American is easily swayed by what they are told to do by people whom they believe they can trust.

Remember "With rates this low, Americans can re-fi their homes and use some of the equity to pay down credit cards, purchase more things they want... " during the Housing Bubble?

Regards

hedgefundguy

There is nothing wrong with a group of consumers (voters) asking campaigns to consolidate in order to to achieve lower costs (spending) and to maximize revenue (campaign contributions).
I believe it is called "economies of scale".

On the other hand, it is rational for the campaigns not to want to consoldidate due to each of them having invested previously, time, money, and effort.
I believe it is called "sunk costs".

Each candidate believes they can "bankrupt" the other and in the future pick up the consumers (voters) of the bankrupt candidate(s) at a cheaper cost.
---

Ya know...
This is a website devoted to economics.

Regards

martin horn

Also, again, I feel like this comment platform has the ability to edit comments, and that ability has been specifically disabled (I remember once or twice being able to edit my comments back near when the platform was upgraded a few months ago, but that option isn't available anymore).

I'm not really sure why it's disabled, to be honest.

Are they worried we might write a comment that earns a ton of "Recommends", then abuse the "edit comment" feature and change the content of that highly regarded comment to something terrible, making it appear as though, say, 70 members of the Economist blog reading community endorses puppy massacres?

Vaudevillain in reply to martin horn

There are several problems with allowing post-publish edits to comments. One is, as you describe, abuse of moderation schemes (The Economist uses a two-pronged scheme community moderation via recommends, and administrative moderation via administrators deleting inappropriate comments). Another, which is probably more important in this case, is that it damages the ability for discourse when everyone can change their words at any time, even after they've been seen and responded to.

We all agree that the ability to correct minor, embarrassing errors in grammar or punctuation would be great. We would probably prefer that nobody goes back and makes substantive changes to a comment just because somebody pointed out they are wrong. It is not unheard of, on some forums, for malicious users to do this intentionally, just to cause strife and confusion.

The first problem is actually quite easy to fix: editing could simply erase recommends. The second, however, is very much non-trivial.

g cross in reply to Vaudevillain

On reddit they let you edit your comments, but if you do so then an asterisk appears next to your name to signal to everyone that the comment has been edited. One consequence of this is that whenever an edit is made, there is almost always a postscript added that explains what was edited, e.g. "[Edited to fix some embarrassing grammatical mistakes.]" or "[Edited to fix a mistake that X kindly pointed out to me.]"

martin horn

I really want to agree with this post, but I can't.

If E.G. is arguing its undemocratic for any group to seek to limit the choice of candidates for voters, then she should have shown this much outrage as Mike Huckabee was being urged to quit after it became highly likely (but not definite) McCain had won the Republican nomination in 2008, or the pressure on John Edwards to quit and endorse somewhat to help end the near stalemate between Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama that same year. Given the first-past-the-post voting system we have, without the ability to rank preferences, there's a huge incentive to consolidate voting blocks BEFORE voting, to prevent a situation similar to how then-President George H.W. Bush + Ross Perot earned vote share of 60% in 1992 that led to Democrat Bill Clinton winning the presidency.

If E.G. is arguing that in particular, because of their roles as pastors, they shouldn't be meddling in politics, I'm inclined to agree, EXCEPT Evangelical pastors have been working with Republican party for decades, as have African-American religious leaders, so we're sorta past the point of no return in terms of a religious consensus in favor of staying out of politics.

bampbs

Well, at least he didn't thunder anathemas, or recommend that the Lord give 'em a good smiting if they didn't comply.

A Pastor is a citizen, too.

bampbs in reply to LaContra

Not until right now - Cassandra posts so infrequently that I got out of the habit of looking.

I can certainly explain, if not completely reveal.

But I'll have to wait until 2012.

I got in the habit long ago of marking the New Year by listening to Big Ben on the Beeb. And GMT, UT, reminds me of a story. As 2000 approached, my neighbors gathered for a bonfire. Among them were a couple who had been very busy scaring old folks with the calamity to come as the power grid entered 2000. As midnight approached, they excused themselves to man their emergency cockpit. I nearly choked! These two, innocent of all technical understanding (he was the retired Unitarian minister of Concord MA), didn't even know that the power grid runs on Universal Time, that the US power grid had been running quite happily in 2000 for almost five hours by the time they left to do their duty.

The temptation to take an ax to their power line at the stroke of midnight was strong.

Doug Pascover in reply to bampbs

"I was named quite by accident." You were meant to be coined?

Just so you know how much I have fretted about your handle, here are some theories from across the years:

"Bay Area Music, Public Broadcasting System."
"Bachelor of Arts, Masters of Public something, Bachelor of Science"
"Bam! Pow! BullS***!"

bampbs in reply to Doug Pascover

A silly story: I was supposed to be a Junior, but in the hospital at the last minute, my father told my mother that no one ought to have to be a Junior, and went to get the car. My mother had been sure she'd have a girl, so she hadn't given the slightest thought to boys' names. She was preparing to take me home, when a nurse in the room piped up, "You can't take him home without a name!" My mother mumbled something, and the nurse replied, "How about X?" My mother said, "That's fine." Then a second nurse said, "He has to have a middle name. How about Y?" My mother said "Fine." So my epithet in the Sagas will be "The Nurse-Named"

I've never liked my given names. I've tried switching, especially when wandering, but it never works. Guaranteed, some new acquaintance will be standing next to you shouting your new name at you while you stand there as if you're deaf as a post.

la chevre

I agree with JLinville. Mr Vander Plaats doesn't want Iowa's very sizable Evangelical vote to be spread too thinly among several candidates, and this is perfectly rational.

I also don't see why this is improper; anyone is allowed to voice their opinions about what candidates should and shouldn't do, so why would it be different for the very powerful? If Vander Plaats started busting Bachmann's staffers' kneecaps that would be a problem, but simply asking her to step aside is not. I hate the politics of conservative Evangelicals so I don't want Vander Plaats or his ilk to get their way, but I just don't see anything wrong with this.

About Democracy in America

In this blog, our correspondents share their thoughts and opinions on America's kinetic brand of politics and the policy it produces. The blog is named after the study of American politics and society written by Alexis de Tocqueville, a French political scientist, in the 1830s

RSS feed

Advertisement

Trending topics

Read comments on the site's most popular topics

Advertisement

Products & events