District 9: Liberal Media Endorses Pastor Hickey and Debate Dodger

What liberal media? That Sioux Falls paper just endorsed the complete Republican slate for District 9 Senate and House. That includes Deb Peters, who appears to be dodging debates and thinks the right way to keep families from open enrolling out of her school district is to throw up legislative barriers to school choice; Bob Deelstra, who has a speech impediment online; and, in the greatest sign of the apocalypse, Pastor Steve Hickey, who will ban abortion entirely if he gets the chance.

Now I'll admit, of the various fundagelicals with whom I've locked blog horns, Pastor Hickey has come across as more capable of reasoned debate and practical political action than some others of his ilk. But that the largest newspaper in our state would pick him and his Republican colleagues over Trudi Hatch, Mark Anderson, and Rob Wilson—three relatively sober and serious Democrats, not wild radicals like me—reduces to absurdity any suggestion that the South Dakota media has a liberal bias.

Then again, Pastor Hickey does support reparations for Native Americans, including at least a conversation about some eventual land settlement. Maybe he's a liberal after all....

Candidate Steve Hickey on SDPB: Reaching Beyond Abortion

Down the road a piece, Pastor Steve Hickey, candidate for District 9 State House, has his video up on SDPB:



At least he smiles more than Russ Olson.

Remarkably, the man whose blog and church were previously dedicated to nothing but wiping the scourge of women's control over their bodies from the face of South Dakota never says abortion. He does mention his work on ballot initiatives to "represent those who are not being heard" (sounds like code for babies!) and makes the rhetorically important but logically empty statement that he's pro-life (everyone living is pro-life), but he also hits a wide range of other topics (if not specific policies) we'd expect of a serious Legislative candidate. To be honest, I'm glad to see Pastor Hickey's growth into something more than a single-issue candidate.

Of course, I still want Trudi Hatch and Mark W. Anderson to beat Pastor Hickey and beat him hard. Some pings from the peanut gallery:

1. Pastor Hickey says he's "not so much beholden to the political Right or the Left" [stage direction: tilt head right, then left]. Really? He's been to tea parties with the hardest Right characters in our state, like Allen Unruh. He has suggested right-wing voting would win material blessings from the Lord. He does surprise me sometimes with open dialogue and boundary-busting proposals like reparations for Native Americans and some sensible feminism. But make no mistake: the good pastor isn't beholden to the Right; he is the Right.
2. Pastor Hickey says he's felt "the disconnect between the reality of the average taxpayer and those elected to represent us." Is that like the disconnect between Russell Olson's votes to cut education but send tax breaks to Canadians? Do beat that drum!
3. Pastor Hickey is "committed to do more to support our educators." I hope that support means something more tangible than compliments and prayers.
   
4. Pastor Hickey wants to "get government off the backs of job creators" and pass tax breaks for small businesses. Dang, how about some tax breaks for the job doers?
   
5. Not a voting issue, but Steve, you look a little thinner on video than in your pix. Don't let the campaign cut into good eating!

Still lots of SDPB candidate videos to come. Stay tuned!
-------------------------------
Bonus Web critique: Pastor Steve, the content frame on your website is way too small! Make it bigger so I don't have to hit the scroll bar so often. Better yet, ditch the frame and give me a full page for the issues!
-------------------------------
Bonus blog trivia: Congratulations, Steve! You are the subject of Madville Times post #4000!

Hickey Poll Asks Different Question, Gets Different Answer

Pastor Steve Hickey runs a poll related to pastors' politicizing their pulpits and gets results the opposite of mine.

I could add his poll results and mine and conclude that if you throw South Dakota blog readers together, you'll still find people opposing pastors endorsing candidates from the pulpit by nearly a 2-to-1 margin.. But I can't do that, since Pastor Hickey and I asked entirely different questions. My poll asked, "Do you want your pastor (rabbi, etc.) to endorse political candidates from the pulpit?" Hickey's poll asked "Should clergy (from their pulpits) be able to set forth the Biblical teaching on issues and show how candidates measure up to that standard?"

We also offered different answer options. I simply offered options for "Yes" and "No." Hickey's loaded options elaborated: "YES, the First Amendment/ Constitution trumps IRS code (i.e. 1954 Johnson Amendment)" versus "NO, the IRS is right to extend a benefit (tax exemption) to silence a certain kind of speech." He also included options where respondents could indicate whether they "faithfully" attend church. After some grumbling from me, Hickey added this option: "I'm not a church goer but believe Separation/Church& State means gov't must help pastors write their sermons."

Pastor Hickey acknowledges the weaknesses in his poll, as I try to do with mine. He also notes that Gordon Howie's risible effort to portray himself as the candidate of God in the GOP primary isn't flying with most pastors, who see no Scriptural justification to pick one GOP candidate over another (well, not counting Dave Knudson, according to some fundegelical interpretations).

I'm still waiting to hear any spiritual justification for any pastor to use the pulpit to endorse any fallible human candidate over another. The church should challenge political powers, not praise and promote them.

Religion and Politics: Engaging the Beast Versus Becoming the Beast

Imagine what we'd talk about if you invited us all to dinner....

Pastor Steve Hickey joins the fray on the question of pastors endorsing political candidates from the pulpit. Pastor Hickey is an interesting case: he'll be spending lots of time endorsing himself for District 9 State House. I have no problem with his taking the hustings at Tea Parties and candidate fora to say, "Vote for me!" (well, no problem aside from the fact that voting for him would drive us into a Dark Ages of theocracy). I would have a problem if I heard he was issuing self-endorsements from the pulpit.

Both Pastor Hickey and Dr. Ken Blanchard have made some good points about the need for churches to engage in politics. Indeed, in my favorite definition of the word, politics is the art of living together in community. Churches are all about that. Love thy neighbor is a political statement: it keeps the polis from degenerating into Russian mafia anarcho-capitalism. Martin Luther King, Jr., gave political sermons exhorting all of us to make our community more just.

But there seems to be a line between advocating for justice and advocating for a specific candidate to lead us to justice. Christian churches face a challenge of being in the world but not of the world. Churches must challenge Caesar without picking or becoming Caesar.

The issue of the constitutionality of political endorsements from the pulpit is perhaps less important to resolving the issue than the question of the proper role of the church. Declaring any person more worthy than another doesn't seem a proper use of the pulpit. When we drag our sorry butts before the preacher on Sunday morning, we are all sinners, preachers and politicians, too. To hold up any man but Jesus for praise on Sunday morning might be Constitutional, but it doesn't feel Scriptural.

--------------------------------
p.s.: Pastor Hickey reports that the candidate who got this muckball rolling, Gordon Howie, is saying that his raising of this issue has raised his profile and boosted his campaign. Horsehockey. Howie would say that if his T-RV ran over a bunch of nuns. Gordon Howie is not crusading for justice. He's trying to co-opt pastors and pulpits to support his campaign. Howie is a crass opportunist trying to stir up headlines for a campaign that has failed to gain traction against the Daugaard machine.

pp.s.: Mr. Price also joins the fray... and shows Shad Olson isn't smart enough for the fight.

ppp.s.: "some guy" doesn't raise his profile with Pastor Shel... but Pastor Shel does rip into my characterization of tax-exempt status as a subsidy and discuss the useful role of church in society.

Hickey One-Week Campaign Result of Missed Voice Mail

Kevin Woster's article today on the GOP horserace for South Dakota's lone House seat is chock full of little goodies. Pastor Steve Hickey tells Woster R. Blake Curd's contributions to Tom Daschle should concern Repbulican voters. Hickey says he entered the race to give GOP voters a better choice.

But Hickey reveals he wouldn't have thrown in if he had just checked his voice mail:

Some looked to Hickey, and he entered the race. But within hours of his announcement, he learned of Noem’s. Hickey said he wouldn’t have run if he had known her plans.

“She left me a voice mail a couple of days earlier, and I just didn’t get it,” he said.

Less than a week after he entered the race, Hickey withdrew. He also endorsed Noem, saying he didn’t want to divide the vote that would go to her [Kevin Woster, "Long After Abortion Wars, Resentment Toward Chris Nelson Lingers," Rapid City Journal, 2010.02.28].

Note to candidates: before a big announcement, always check your voice mail (and your e-mail, and your Facebook, and your blog comments, and whatever the heck else you're connected with). And Kristi, maybe next time, if you call the guy Sunday, and you know he's announcing Tuesday, try calling again Monday!

I've told Pastor Hickey that I will do everything in my blogging powers to ensure he doesn't win whatever public office he runs for. But I'll still give him credit: the man can change his mind, and he's willing to admit a mistake. And to soothe my fundagelicophobia, Pastor Hickey shows he can defer to a woman seeking a leadership position.

Top Ten Reasons Steve Hickey Dropped out of House Race

Pastor Steve Hickey has ended his campaign to unseat Stephanie Herseth Sandlin and has thrown his support behind State Rep. Kristi Noem. Hickey says he's going back to his "original goal" to run for a District 9 State House seat.

So why did Pastor Hickey bail after just a week? Here are my top ten wild speculations:

10

Campaign advisors insisted Hickey would have to shave, just like the other two men in the race. A man of principle, Pastor Hickey said it wasn't worth it. Update 09:33 CST: Hickey confirms (sort of)!

9

Hickey's only chance to get traction was to make a big media splash with his announcement. Noem sucked all of the air out of that balloon by announcing on the same day.

8

Hickey's only chance to get traction was with a snappy campaign slogan. "Give Congress a Hickey" had real promise... but then he heard Kristi would one-up him with, "Don't Just Say No; Say Noem!"

7

Pastor Hickey realized a U.S. House campaign would have him on the road and away from his congregation too much. He decided to stick with a District 9 campaign that will let him stick with his first calling.

6

Hickey realized his abortion agenda would get him nowhere. South Dakota has managed to get through a legislative session without floating a single abortion bill. More importantly, the CPAC straw poll showed that even the hardcore conservatives don't see the anti-abortion crusade as a priority.

5

The Republican Party establishment has an iron grip on its nomination process. It will not allow independents into an open primary, and it by no means will allow a party outsider like Hickey to challenge established politicians like Noem, Curd, and Nelson.

4

There's a Tea Party schism afoot. Hickey entered the race to challenge Tea Party faker Curd. When Noem entered the race, Hickey decided he could advance the conservative agenda better by running for state office himself and hitching his star to a more photogenic conservative.

3

Hickey was just trying to save Steve Sibson's soul by distracting Sibby from his obsession with me and giving him a faithful theocrat to rapturously endorse. When Sibby said nothing about Hickey and instead went to Pierre to reveal he's turned into a nanny-stater, Hickey was crushed.

2

Noem promised, if elected, to get Hickey on the roster to give the invocation at the U.S. House.

1

Hickey took the advice I've given to some of my Glenn Beck-lovin' neighbors to focus on making changes at the state and local levels rather than in a Congress controlled by huge moneyed interests that a bunch of folks in tri-cornered hats aren't sufficiently organized to fight. Change starts in your backyard.

Primary Prediction: Nelson 40%, Curd 31%, Hickey 29%

Pastor Steve Hickey has taken my advice to get off the abortion horse and expand his political horizons... and how! This morning he's joining the field of candidates vying to unseat our Democratic Congresswoman Stephanie Herseth Sandlin.

Hickey's outspokenness and untraditional positions on issues like Native Americans and the Black Hills will bring back some of potential for interesting debate that we lost when Thad Wasson bailed. hickey also brings whiskers back to the race (Steve! Do not shave!). And with a campaign slogan like "Give Congress a Hickey!" how can he lose?

Here's how: Pastor Hickey and Dr. R. Blake Curd now split the angry conservative and fundagelical vote. Hickey pulls ahead with coherent conservatism as Curd proves himself a Tea Party faker... but then Curd cries "Indian lover!" and scares the hard base away from a candidate who wins praise from a liberal blogger for proposing reparations to Native Americans. The Chamber of Commerce Republicans run for the safety of Secretary of State Chris Nelson.

Final primary vote: Nelson 40%, Curd 31%, Hickey 29%. I want to give Hickey second place, as I think he'll cream Curd on personality and communication... but I really worry the Native American issue won't play well among GOP primary voters. Republicans, please prove me wrong.

Pastor Hickey, make the most of it. Lead the conversation.

But after June 8, the race gets boring again.

------------
Well, heck—that calculus lasted for about ten minutes. Darn you, Kristi Noem!

Pastor Hickey on Lakota and Black Hills: Reconciliation? Try Reparations

There are numerous reasons Pastor Steve Hickey should blog about something other than abortion. One big reason: when he talks about issues like justice for Native Americans, he makes a lot of sense:

Personally, at this point, I support more listening, more conversation, and some creativity toward a mutually acceptable accord which may or may not include some kind of Lakota Makoce Wakan (sacred place/land, Sioux sanctuary or sacred memorial grounds) in the Black Hills National Forest. Should the Black Hills be given back? Not today. But today is the day to come together and look at every conceivable angle of how best to right this national wrong. It will take more patience on behalf of the Sioux, and more remorse on behalf of the United States. The Resolution of Apology to Native American Peoples is merely the starting place for a better life together and my hope is that South Dakotans genuinely support this and that native South Dakotans receive it sincerely. Mutually acceptable reparations must follow and, since the issue is land, I’m not sure anything short of some form of land settlement will receive mutual support [Pastor Steve Hickey, "Should We Give the Black Hills Back?" Voices Carry, 2010.01.25].

I double-dog-dare Governor Rounds to offer straight talk like that as he spearheads the "Year of Unity." I also hope Pastor Hickey's voice will carry as we try to restart Euro-Lakota reconciliation.

p.s.: Props to Pastor Hickey on being the first radical conservative I've heard to decry the IRS seizure and auction of tribal land on Crow Creek. Pay attention to his comment that the United States had better hope China doesn't take the same tack over our red ink.

Wasson Says Give Black Hills Back; Hickey Supports U.S. Apology to Tribes

By turning a South Dakota spotlight toward Aaron Huey's disturbing photo essay and commentary on our Pine Ridge Reservation, Dr. David Newquist generated some valuable conversation about one of the biggest and most ignored problems in South Dakota. (His post also provoked some predictable hot air.)

Among some of the noteworthy comments elicited:

U.S. House candidate Thad Wasson wins the award for gutsiest politician in South Dakota by declaring he supports returning land to the Sioux Nations. Not just a few more scraps of land in or around existing reservation boundaries, but prime turf like the Black Hills. "[T]he reason no politician wants to address this is greed," says Wasson. The man from Piedmont (yes, Wasson lives in the territory he would consider giving back) may have guaranteed himself expulsion from the South Dakota GOP, but he has proven he can shake up any political discussion.

Pastor Steve Hickey, who is to me as ACESA is to John Thune (i.e., something I fight with every fiber of my being), points to some good things happening in Indian country. He also celebrates—yes, celebrates—the formal apology to American Indians Congress has passed. "I'm sorry" may not seem like much after five centuries of cultural decimation, but Pastor Hickey says the apology "will have spiritual implications that few realize." Pastor Hickey never ceases to surprise me... sometimes in a good way.

Dr. Newquist himself follows up with more commentary. The Brown County Democrat supports the Pennington County Republican's call to give back the land.

Mixed Messages from Pastor Hickey on George Tiller Murder

I'm having some difficulty discerning true meanings in some of the blog coverage of the murder of Kansas abortion provider Dr. George Tiller. Todd Epp of South Dakota Watch/Middle Border Sun criticizes Pastor Steve Hickey of Voices Carry for "rejoicing" (Epp's word) in the murder. I review Pastor Hickey's original post: he pretty clearly expresses relief that Dr. Tiller is dead, and he says some odd things about us lefties deluding ourselves "into thinking Tiller is receiving heaven's reward right now" (bit of a stretch to make American liberal atheists like me sound like Muslim radicals, Steve). But he also salts his post with enough contradictory language about feeling sick about the murder that it's hard to tell what Hickey means. He says vengeance is the Lord's, not ours, but he expresses eagerness to witness the punishment he imagines God meting out on Tiller. he says the killing was "misguided and far more harmful to the cause than helpful," but he sees pro-choice activists who write offensive statements as more misguided than the man who shot Dr. Tiller in his church. And Hickey ends his post with this Biblical justification for murder:

...the Bible says in this case it'd be better for Tiller to have had a millstone tied around his neck and thrown into the depth of the sea that to have done what he did in this life... [Pastor Steve Hickey, "Today Tiller the Killer, Now a Martyr for Molech, Not God," Voices Carry, 2009.05.31].

There is enough language in both directions that one could argue both ways: in places, Pastor Hickey sounds like he is justifying and celebrating the murder, but in others he sounds like he is condemning it... although that condemnation sometimes seems to reflect more concern about the damage the murder will do to his political movement than the sin of the murder itself. But Pastor Hickey and his supproters can quite rightly make the legalistic argument that he nowhere says he "rejoices" in the shooting.

KELO appears to side with caution and Pastor Hickey on this one. For perhaps the first time in its nearly two-year association with the independent South Dakota blogosphere, KELO has pulled a post. Mr. Epp's criticism of Pastor Hickey remains at his home site, but it has disappeared from Mr. Epp's corner of the KELO Issues blog list.

I won't cry First Amendment foul here. Those of us granted the privilege to post on KELO understand the rules perfectly well: KELO can nuke anything we write, for whatever reason, just as KELO (like any other media outlet, and any blogger) is free to choose what news it covers and what angles it chooses to play up or ignore.

But then I turn to Pastor Hickey's follow-up, which seems to play the same verbal shell game that got Mr. Epp's dander up and his post banned:

Also, earlier this evening a friend of mine dropped an interesting historical parallel into the fray that I believe to be right on the money. It made me think there is a little deja vu down there in Kansas tonight.

The historical parallel is to John Brown, who hacked pro-slavery Kansas farmers to death with swords.

President Lincoln called John Brown a "misguided fanatic." Historian David S. Reynolds hailed him as the man who "killed slavery, sparked the civil war, and seeded civil rights." Historian Ken Chowder said John Brown was "at certain times, a great man", but also "the father of American terrorism." Probably all of the above is accurate.

Misguided... killed slavery... great man... father of American terrorism... "probably... accurate." Pastor Hickey waits until the very bottom of the article, after reposting the full text of the celebratory "John Brown's Body," to say "Tiller's killer is no hero" and deserves no songs to be sung about him... although Hickey offers no explanation of what distinguishes John Brown's celebrated murderousness from yesterday's killing on sacred ground.

Pardon me if I scratch my head a little. I will agree that the issue is very complex... but must also conclude from the language in Pastor Hickey's article that he is trying to play both sides. He wants to introduce the John-Brown-hero meme, but he wants to be able to disavow it. Perhaps that's enough cover to get KELO to ban the debate... but Pastor Hickey lays enough verbal land mines to warrant Mr. Epp's criticism.

-----------------------------
There is one telling passage in the blog post Pastor Hickey says is "right on the money":

No rational person would consider Brown a positive figure in history….but he did prove something. The issue of slavery was one of life and death. It was not political. It was not governmental. It was much, much deeper than that, and there was no common ground high enough for both sides to stand and feel good about their compromises. It could not be negotiated. It had to be settled [emphasis mine, thoughts Randy Bohlender's, "Thoughts on the Killing of George Tiller," RandyBohlender.com, 2009.06.01].

The first part I emphasize actually encourages me: perhaps Mr. Bohlender and Pastor Hickey are agreeing with me that we need to take the abortion debate out of politics, get the government out of women's medical decisions, and address abortion at the personal and community level.

The second part I emphasize makes me nervous: No negotiation, no settlement... those sound like fighting words to me. If abortion protestors do retreat from politics, I hope they will follow Christ and Gandhi and not John Brown in their efforts to remake society. I only worry that Pastor Hickey's equivocal language does not sufficiently condemn the latter and embrace the former.

Update 2009.06.02 09:35 CDT: Even Sibby manages to be more direct in his condemnation: "Tiller Murder Is Not Pro-Life."