How Huckabee repackages old-timey fundamentalism.

By Jeff Sharlet

D. Michael Lindsay, the Rice University sociologist who upended conventional wisdom about evangelicals and class with his recent book Faith in the Halls of Power: How Evangelicals Joined the American Elite , argues on The Immanent Frame that Mike Huckabee is a new kind of evangelical who is “less interested in ‘taking back the country’ for the faithful and more interested in his faith being seen as authentic, reasonable, and attractive.” Maybe so, but beauty is in the eye of the beholder; what Huckabee finds “attractive” is a Christian nation. Says Huck: “I hope we answer the alarm clock and take this nation back for Christ.”

That’s Huckabee as governor of Arkansas. Lindsay’s book is premised on the assumption that moving up to the major leagues tends to moderate beliefs. But here’s Huckabee a few days ago, after his Iowa win and his strong New Hampshire showing, events Lindsay proposes as indicative of Huck’s “cosmopolitan” evangelical appeal: “I have opponents in this race who do not want to change the Constitution. But I believe it’s a lot easier to change the Constitution than it would be to change the word of the living God. And that’s what we need to do is amend the Constitution so it’s in God’s standards rather than trying to change God’s standards so it lines up with some contemporary view of how we treat each other and how we treat the family.”

The context of Huckabee’s remarks was his support for amendments banning same-sex marriage and abortion, but the philosophy of church and state expressed is, indeed, broader than that championed by the old hot button fundamentalists. Huckabee looks beyond abortion and same sex marriage to extend his theocentric critique to all aspects of governance. Most notably, in the eyes of the press and centrist scholars such as Lindsay, care for the environment and poverty work. This, says the new conventional wisdom, is proof of Huckabee’s gentler, kinder evangelicalism, and, perhaps, a shift in American evangelicalism in general.

But Huck hasn’t given up on “taking back the country,” he’s joined a growing number of evangelical elites in recognizing that aim as a bigger, more complex, and longer-term project than previously understood. That realization may be the most significant impact of the Bush presidency on American evangelicalism. Bush won through narrow but effective appeals to an evangelical base. Many evangelicals are now among those most disappointed in the Bush administration. Does that mean they’re moving away from its conservatism? Not necessarily. Huckabee is in most regards more conservative than Bush, and not just on social issues. Yes, he cares about the poor; he also believes that “free markets” the engine of prosperity for the already-wealthy, are the best way to help them. Yes, he cares about the environment. He also believes the free market is the best way to protect it. Yes, he believes in the plight of working people. He also believes that presenting himself as among their number, an old political trick, is a great way to win votes. Is this “cosmopolitan,” as Lindsay puts it? “Populist,” as the New York Times suggests? Or is it just savvy, the growing sophistication of American fundamentalism?

Jeff Sharlet is the author of The Family: The Secret Fundamentalism at the Heart of American Power (HarperCollins, May).