TNR BLOGS

December 01, 2008 | 2:02 PM
December 01, 2008 | 1:00 PM
December 01, 2008 | 12:42 PM

December 01, 2008 | 11:22 AM
December 01, 2008 | 11:10 AM
December 01, 2008 | 9:57 AM

July 26, 2008 | 2:24 PM
July 23, 2008 | 1:55 PM
July 17, 2008 | 3:56 PM

December 01, 2008 | 4:08 PM
December 01, 2008 | 1:36 PM
December 01, 2008 | 12:00 PM
COLUMNISTS
TODAY'S STORIES
11.01.2008
The South Carolina Debate

A couple quick thoughts about the GOP debate:

1.) There was a lot of talk going into last night about how Fred Thompson would be gunning for Mike Huckabee's head. Thompson didn't disappoint. He bashed Huckabee on taxes and spending, on his liberal foreign policy instincts and soft immigration record, on his National Education Association endorsement. He also lectured Huckabee about why we need to subsidize the Pakistani military, not-so-subtly suggesting that Huckabee was in over his head.

Thompson and Huckabee are theoretically competing for a similar bloc of conservatives, so these attacks make some sense. (Though the word "competing" implies Thompson is doing much better than he actually is.) But Thompson hardly laid a glove on McCain, the other front-runner in recent South Carolina polls, leading me to suspect Thompson of having a secondary motive: doing McCain's dirty work for him. There were times when he looked more like a running-mate than a candidate in his own right, though maybe I'm over-thinking it.

2.) Is it just me, or does that corrupt Boeing tanker deal McCain put the kibosh on--to his great credit--get more expensive every time he mentions it? The last time he mentioned this, I thought he said he'd saved the American taxpayer $2 billion. Tonight it was $6 billion. I suspect there's a direct correlation between the rise of that figure and the number of hits McCain takes for opposing Bush's tax cuts. He's decided his best defense against those attacks is his record on spending.

3.) Mitt Romney sounded like a smart technocrat last night--his comments about the recent near-confrontation with Iran was detailed and impressive. This is a winning persona for him. The problem is that technocrats don't inspire much passion. And, having dug himself a hole in Iowa and New Hampshire, I'm not sure he can get back into the race without something more dramatic. (Also, as Jonathan Martin points out, the one issue on which he does seem to excite Republican passions--immigration--was relegated to a quick segment at the end of the debate. Good for McCain, bad for Romney.)

4.) Huckabee had a couple of very impressive answers last night. His answer to a question about Israel--"If I were president, you can rest assured that we would not let an ally be annihilated by the enemies which surround it"*--not only seemed heartfelt, but must have gone over like catnip among the evangelicals he's courting. 

I also thought Huckabee held his own when questioned about a Southern Baptist Convention statement he'd endorsed back in 1998, about how a wife should "submit graciously to the servant will of her husband." Huckabee started with a winning comment about how everyone says we should keep religion out of presidential politics and yet he constantly gets questions about his religion. Then he explained that this was a tenet of his faith, not an expression of his politics, and that the full commandement is for both husband and wife be the servants of one another. "[M]arriage is not a 50/50 deal, where each partner gives 50 percent," he said. "Biblically, marriage is 100/100 deal. Each partner gives 100 percent of their devotion to the other."

Though Baptists have a history of emphasizing only the female-to-male subservience, Huckabee's point is technically accurate--the New Testament does talk about subservience in both directions. I think that gave Huckabee the best of both worlds here: It let him tout his knowledge of the Bible and his orthodox reading of it while sounding almost progressive--certainly not like a neanderthal. (In case it needs to be said: I completely disagree with the statement myself. I'm just talking debate tactics here.)

Huckabee's most disappointing answer came on a question about a possible recession. He started out strong--feeling people's pain about exorbitant gas prices and the subprime mortgage crisis. But, after mentioning rising healthcare and education costs, he explained that the solution to all of these problems was ... to eventually move to a fair tax. It would have been a completely glib proposal even if the fair tax were a sound idea. (A tax reform proposal would have to unleash some pretty powerful entrepreneurial forces to make most Americans rich enough to afford escalating healthcare and tuition costs.) Alas, nothing could be less so. The response fits with Huckabee's general pattern of correctly diagnosing problems but being unwilling to grapple with the implications of his diagnosis.   

5.) Rudy did nothing for me.

*All the quotes in this post are from my contemporaneous notes, so they might not be completely accurate. I'll update when I get a transcript.

Update: I've been meaning to do this all day; commenter cspencef beat me to it:

When in doubt, go to the source:

Ephesians 5:21 specifically reads "Be subject to one another out of reverence for Christ" (NRSV).  Good start.

What most people read starts in verses 22-24: "Wives, be subject to your husbands as you are to the Lord.  For the husband is head of the wife just as Christ is the head of the church, the body of which he is the Savior  Just as the church is subject to Christ, so also wives ought to be, in everything, to their husbands."  Not the Apostle Paul's finest hour, even in the eyes of his biggest fans.

If the parallelism had continued then there probably isn't much to pick on, but instead the turn in verse 25 is different: "Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her, in order to make her holy by cleansing her with the washing of water by the word..." and goes off further in that direction.  Nothing about submission of husband to wife.  

Granted, one can argue that telling a husband to love his wife was pretty darn radical in first-century society.  But as it sits this stuff is darned easy to spin (as Southern Baptists spun it) based on the "husband is head of wife" angle.  

So not quite mutual subservience, but not quite one-way subservience of wife to husband either. Seems like enough room for Huckabee to spin it the way he did...

Second update: Quotes have been cleaned up. Full transcript is here.

--Noam Scheiber

Posted: Friday, January 11, 2008 2:36 AM with 8 comment(s)

Comments

You must be logged-in to comment.

Not a subscriber? Click here to get a digital or print and digital subscription to The New Republic!

thejauntyboulevardier said:

the thing that frustrates me the most about these debates - and this debate in particular - is that the moderators allow the GOP candidates to continue the Chaitian "Big Con" chimera of tax cuts as the remedy for every possible economic variance. With our present unsteady economic situation, anyone advocating the permanent implementation the Bush tax cuts, especially those for the upper brackets, is insane. I also think it is irresponsible for Democrats to talk about "middle class" tax cuts without linking them to upper class tax increases.

Chait nailed it in his book: The GOP is just unable to discuss any economic strategy that does not allow for absolute and complete fealty to the Big Con of Supply Side economics...

January 11, 2008 10:17 AM

clifton said:

I think Huckabee's answer about wives' relationships to their husbands might be impressive only to those unfamiliar with the bible.  I'm pretty sure the bible does not say husbands and wives should serve each other.  The passage in question says that wives should submit to their husbands as men submit themselves to God, and that husbands should love their wives as God loves man.

It is true that for Christians, the love of God for man includes sacrificing His own good for the good of man, but I still don't think that average Christian considers God to be his or her servant.

Of course I could be wrong, and there could be some other passage in the bible that talks of a husbands subservience to his wife, but I couldn't find it

January 11, 2008 11:09 AM

mmathog said:

I just want to say Scheiber that this whole US bellicosity toward Iran is batshit insane. Gulf of Tonkin II? I mean, WTF?

Iran is a 3rd world country with a weak army and no nukes. I'm aware of the Mossadegh history and those troubles in 1979, but there's no reason we should have a Persian problem, not of this magnitude (the Arab issues are more difficult and complex).

Why are we ginning up this crap? (Explicitly violating the UN Charter, by the way). I mean, jesus, going halfway around the world to threaten them all the time?

Now someone's gonna tell me that Iran is 'really scary' and this isn't about oil.

January 11, 2008 12:36 PM

blackton said:

clifton, if you read the transcript, Huckabee left out the finish of the thought, that man in turn must serve God, implying that the man must in turn serve the woman. It was a pretty clever trick letting the average viewer filling in the blank with man serving God, with the devout finishing the thought as it was written. Still in all, it was a bullshit question. You can pepper Huckabee with tons of inconvenient bible verses but it really should not be an issue since he is not running for Pastor in chief.

January 11, 2008 1:34 PM

clifton said:

blackton, I agree that it might be a bit unfair, but for different reasons, I think, than you.  Wasn't the original quote from a document from almost 10 years ago, and one that he didn't write himself, just endorsed?  I think that's enough to make it unfair.

But just because it's a religious question doesn't make it unfair.  I think we as voters have both a right and a responsibility to evaluate the beliefs of candidates on any issue which will come up in the course of their duties.  And this is true regardless whether the origin of that belief is religious or not.  Some candidates (eg Democrats, Ron Paul, and maybe Fred Thompson) don't believe that the federal government has a role in telling people what constitutes a good marriage.  But the rest of them should have to defend their views of marriage, whether religiously motivated or otherwise.

January 11, 2008 1:55 PM

cspencef said:

When in doubt, go to the source:

Ephesians 5:21 specifically reads "Be subject to one another out of reverence for Christ" (NRSV).  Good start.

What most people read starts in verses 22-24: "Wives, be subject to your husbands as you are to the Lord.  For the husband is head of the wife just as Christ is the head of the church, the body of which he is the Savior  Just as the church is subject to Christ, so also wives ought to be, in everything, to their husbands."  Not the Apostle Paul's finest hour, even in the eyes of his biggest fans.

If the parallelism had continued then there probably isn't much to pick on, but instead the turn in verse 25 is different: "Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her, in order to make her holy by cleansing her with the washing of water by the word..." and goes off further in that direction.  Nothing about submission of husband to wife.  

Granted, one can argue that telling a husband to love his wife was pretty darn radical in first-century society.  But as it sits this stuff is darned easy to spin (as Southern Baptists spun it) based on the "husband is head of wife" angle.  

And frankly, Huckabee brought it on himself the moment he ran an ad with the words "Christian leader" prominently attached to him.  For him to whine about it now is hypocrisy of the worst Southern Baptist preacher sort.  You made your bed, Huck, now lie in it.  Huckabee himself made it matter, in a way that Giuliani or Thompson or even Romney didn't quite do.

Furthermore, the Huckster was into politics and out of pastoring; by 1998, he had been governor of Arkansas close to two years.  In that case, what is a governor doing endorsing a statement by a Christian denomination, even if it was pretty much a wholly-owned subsidiary of the GOD--sorry, GOP--by that time?  

January 11, 2008 5:05 PM

blackton said:

clifton, cspenceef, it is not so much unfairness to me as being beside the point. Imagine if MLK had to defend all of the elements of the bible when he was fighting for civil rights. Remember he received the bulk of his perceived authority as being a "Christian leader" and it is doubtful if he would have achieved nearly what he did if he were a businessman or a politician. What matters to me most is his positions and how deeply his convictions run. If I disagree with his positions I won't vote for him. If I agree with him but he is a weathervane (like Mitt) I won't vote for him either. If Obama got his positions from his mothers knee, the bible, or life itself makes good biography but little else. It is his positions and character that matter most to me.

January 11, 2008 5:37 PM

cspencef said:

I don't disagree that it's beside the point in the larger scheme of things, but I have no tolerance for Pastor MIke flagging himself as God's Man in one ad or one state and trying to insulate himself from any religious questions in another.  If anything that goes to a character flaw I don't want to see in a president at the very least, even if (or perhaps because) so many past, present, or potential future presidents suffer from it.  As for MLK, he didn't run for office, and remained an active preacher throughout his too-short life, so I'm not sure the comparison quite holds.  At any rate I have abundant reasons not to vote for Huckabee, whether his personal piety is considered or not.  

January 11, 2008 5:52 PM