Topic: Presidential Campaign 2008
Why Mike Huckabee Scares Me Support who you like, I submit that for anyone who believes in freedom there's no candidate more scary than Mike Huckabee.by Dave Nalle
(Libertarian)
Sunday, January 20, 2008
Everyone tells me I'm a dreadful, heartless conservative. But if I'm a conservative I don't know what the hell Mike Huckabee is, because not only do I not agree with him on almost any issues, his beliefs actually scare the hell out of me.
A lot of this has to do with religion. I think of myself as an open-minded atheist, in that I'm not hostile towards religion and can see the valuable contributions it has made to society. I certainly don't want to impose my beliefs on people of faith, but I expect them to show me the same courtesy in return. I think religion is a private affair between man and God. Huckabee things religion should be the basis of national policy.
That's my first major point of departure from Mike Huckabee. He seems to be running not only for President of the United States, but also for Supreme High Priest and Grand Inquisitor all at the same time. Two out of those three roles aren't actually authorized in the Constitution.
When he raised his hand at the debate last year to proudly reject evolution you probably knew where he was coming from. You can get a lot more details of Huckabee's philosophy of life and his view on many issues by reading his book Character Makes a Difference, in which he lays out his basic position on the separation of Church and State:
"Those who believe God created humans have a different worldview from those who believe humans created God. Politics are totally directed by worldview. That is why when people say, "We ought to separate politics from religion," I say to separate the two is absolutely impossible."
That perspective is in pretty much direct opposition to the Constitution, but that's okay, because earlier this week in the Michigan debate Huckabee made it quite clear that he considers the Constitution an impediment to his vision of theocracy and he'd like to do away with it.
"[Some of my opponents] 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 to amend the Constitution so it's in God's standards rather than try to change God's standards."
How he's going to square that viewpoint with swearing an oath to support and defend the Constitution if he gets sworn in as President is hard to fathom. Maybe the Bible he takes the oath on will burst into flame or something equally biblical.
Once Huckabee gets into office, he ought to have an easy job, because the usual practice of addressing specific problems is outmoded. In the new theocracy we're going to solve all the nation's problems by reading the Bible more as he explains in Character Makes a Difference:
"Our problems do not result from economics or deficiencies in education. They result from the selfish decision to ignore God's standards of integrity. Standards based on anything else are relative, and relative standards are meaningless."
But fear not. God has given him the word on some specific issues. He wants to expand farm subsidies, tax businesses on the internet and put homosexuals in AIDS quarantine camps. And he's got a different take on marriage. Not only does he want to ban gay marriage, but he wants to make divorce illegal as he explained in a GOP debate in September of last year:
"Marriage is a relationship between one man, one woman, for life...I would support strongly and lead--not just support, but lead--an effort to have a constitutional amendment to affirm marriage as between one man, one woman, for life.
This is definitely not what I want my government to be wasting its time on or the kind of thing I want to see amended into the Constitution in the spot where the First Amendment used to be. The Constitution is the foundation of our government and ought to be treated with respect. The Bill of Rights is absolutely essential to maintaining a free society. Huckabee would like to write over them with Bible verses and that seems like a bad trade.
I have to admit that Huckabee is charming, personable and witty. But it doesn't make oppression any better if it comes in an appealing package. Every despot probably looked good to the people when they first yielded up power to him. An perhaps worst of all, Huckabee seems to have it in for free speech on the internet. In his book From Hope to Higher Ground he wrote "Read the Bible more; blogs less." Now does that seem like a good idea?
To find out much more than you probably want to know about Huckabee and what he stands for, visit his page at On the Issues.
Did you like this article? If you did, Thumb It! 6 thumbs so far
2008 Dave Nalle, all rights reserved.
Published: Sunday, January 20, 2008
Last modified: Sunday, January 20, 2008
The views expressed in this
article are those of Dave Nalle only and do not represent
the views of Nolan Chart, LLC or its affiliates. Dave Nalle is
solely responsible for the contents of this article and is not an
employee or otherwise affiliated with Nolan Chart, LLC in his/her role as a columnist.
Posted By: Christopher Espinal
Date: 2008-01-20 18:31:54
I think what Huckabee means to say about Separation of Church and State is that religious political figures tend to be motivated by religion "to do the right thing." I'm not sure if he means to say that he will be commander in chief of the US like the pope is at the vatican.
Ron Paul Scares me as well for his religious beliefs that an invisible jewish man in the sky created all of the species through intelligent design as documented in the ancient book known as the bible. His anti-Mexican BS scares me too. But then again, I won't be happy until we have an Anti-statist Atheist running for office. (I guess the idea of a total interventionist libertarian scares everyone)
Ron Paul Scares me as well for his religious beliefs that an invisible jewish man in the sky created all of the species through intelligent design as documented in the ancient book known as the bible.
To be fair, Paul did not raise his hand when the Huckster did on the Intelligent design question.
His anti-Mexican BS scares me too.
I had hoped for better from Paul on that issue. Most straight libertarians don't agree with him on that issue.
But then again, I won't be happy until we have an Anti-statist Atheist running for office. (I guess the idea of a total interventionist libertarian scares everyone)
It doesn't exactly scare me. I don't agree, but I do understand that philosophy. It troubles me that so few libertarians understand it at all, because wisdom lies somewhere between your missionary libertarianism and non-interventionism.
I must admit I am confused over the immigration issue.
Ron Paul supports the Constitution. The Constitution mandates securing the borders. We are supposed to have a rule of law in America. It seems that Paul cannot both support the Constitution and continue to allow unchecked illegal immigration. I know this is not a popular concept among "pure" libertarians but it is consistent with anyone who believes in the rule of law. Ron Paul is running as a Republican so must not be a "pure" libertarian.
Does Paul advocate never letting anyone from anywhere into America or does he say that they are welcome but must follow the legal procedures that are in place in order to enter?
There seems to be a lot of difference between me inviting someone to come live with me in my home and someone forcefully entering my home and demanding that I let them stay regardless. I would not go to another country and expect to be welcomed with open arms if I had not followed that country's legal procedures.
What is the exact state of Ron Paul's immigration thoughts? People seem to think it is rabid anti-immigration. I just don't see it.
thanks Dave for being insightful enough not to fall completely for the Ron Paul religion.
As far as immigration is concerned no illegal immigrant is petitioning to live in your hous or on your property. (unless you just happen to take in Hispanic Prostitutes and they demand thier own room after they do thier work)
If we apply the whole rule of law logic, I could be against drugs, porn, and ciggies by saying "hey, the law is the law and druggies must follow it."
The reason that an open border is essential to libertarianism is that it shows the world that America belongs to everyone and that thier land can become as good as ours if they would simply kill government subsidies to the lazy.
No one in America starves to death because they are poor. No one in America dies simply because they didn't have the money to get a warm place to stay. Charities will provide to people as long as you buy into thier religion. This is why socialism is so attractive, because it is something that the invisible man in the sky advocates.
As far as missionary libertarianism (great term Dave), I think that government would be the only one who could administer it best, because the government is the only one who has legal authority to use force. We are not forcing freedom on people, we are forcing it on governments. Libertarianism does not have to be anarchy either. (but then again there are those who don't understand this) Laws must be just to the point that they can be enforced to:
1 Keep people from hurting each other physically and financially. (theft, property damage, and fraud)
but not
2 Keep people from Hurting themselves physically, or others emotionally.
This is how you can allow drugs, suiside, and tatoos to be kept legal.
Want to comment on this
article? Leave your comment here. Your email address is
required to track your comment. However, we will neither
publish your email address nor distribute it to other
organizations or persons. The only reason we might use
it would be if we needed to contact you regarding your
comment. All comments are subject to our
terms of use policy.
2008 Dave Nalle, all rights reserved.