« The democratic (small d) Weirdness of Iowa | Main | Of Jesus, God, Mormon, Baptist and "Faith Voters" »
Decisions, Decisions
In response to Karen's comment on Richard's thread yesterday, I have some thoughts on the issue of candidates with whom you agree, and even personally like in some areas, but with whom you strongly disagree in others. How do you make that decision of how to weight what is most important to you, and why?
In Karen's case, she spoke of Governor Mike Huckabee, the former governor of Arkansas who is currently in second place in national polls for the Republican Party's nomination for President of the United States. Though Karen agrees and supports his compassion on issues such as poverty, there are a number of things on which she disagrees with Gov. Huckabee.
So as the day approaches where we each will have the solemn opportunity to cast our vote in primaries all across the nation, how do we resolve these conflicts about candidates? Surely no candidate will be able to fill all of our wish list of issues. If a vote is to be meaningful, shouldn't it be more considered than a beauty pageant? Shouldn't this be, at the very least, an exercise in critical thinking?
Since Karen and I have spoken about Huckabee on several occasions, and she mentioned him on yesterday's thread, I am going to, if you will indulge me, use him as an example of how my thinking goes in this process. In the comments section, I'd be interested to hear how other process their choices for Presidential office, if you wouldn't mind sharing what can be a highly personal process.
My post here will also address the part of the constitutional prohibition of a religious test for candidates, as it seems abundantly evident that we will be subjected to information regarding each candidate's faithiness, whether there's a constitutional ban on this or not.
At the risk of turning this into an "Is Mike Huckabee Nuts?" thread, I'm going with the yes, Mike Huckabee is nuts.
But he's not alone. I'm also going with an anyone who believes in creationism is nuts and therefore not qualified to hold public office.
I don't know who I am supporting, and I certainly wouldn't write about it here if I did, but I sure as hell know who scares the crap out of me, and not as just a candidate for the highest office in the land, but I would think the same of any candidate for any public office who held this set of beliefs.
You know what makes Huckabee scary in my book? The same thing that made Nixon scary, and Reagan scary: They are true believers. They believe everything they are saying with absolute faith and conviction. Again, scary. In these troubled and hyped and hyper frightened times, enough people are willing to substitute the judgment of someone, anyone, who has a high degree of certainty of whatever it is they believe, for their own judgment.
Whenever people abandon critical thought, chaos will follow.
Mike Huckabee is a creationist. Nothing he says or does convinces me that put in the position ofdecision making on where to spend the education money, he will not advocate for teaching that exact belief set.
Creationists frighten me. They are, by definition, ideologues. They are not amenable to evidence or reason. By definition then, all argument is based on emotional and personal truth.
This is fine, if Huckabee wants to be President of the United States of somewhere else. But it is, by definition, antithetical to our Constitution, and most especially, our system of juris prudence, which in its ideal state, depends on the complete lack of emotion in our evidentiary code. That quality of reason and evidence absent emotion is designed to be balanced with the zeal of advocacy. That adversarial relationship represents the balance which is justice.
In other words, everyone is entitled to their opinion as to what a set of facts may portend, but each person is not entitled to their own set of facts.
In creationism, Huckabee seeks to have his own set of facts.
Why? I assert this because creationism is not a theory. It is a belief. A theory must be able to be disproved, as well as proved, in order to rise to the definition of the word, "theory". Since you could never disprove creationism, it simply is not a theory, but a belief. The quality of the rightness of that belief is not at issue. What is at issue, is that Huckabee would present it as an alternate theory of the universe, and that would be creating his own set of non-disprovable facts.
But what about the Constitutional ban on religious tests for candidates for President. Doesn't this constitute a de facto religious test?
No. Huckabee never seeks to assure us that he, as President will protect and defend the Constitution, despite what his innermost beliefs might be. On the contrary--he cites his past experiences as Governor of Arkansas in carrying out the death penalty as an example of what he did in just such an instance. In the last public debate, Huckabee, when presented with this problem, prayed for guidance on what to do. Put the man to death, as was the law, or pardon him?
In this instance, Huckabee's only sworn duty was to uphold the laws of Arkansas.
In the end, Huckabee put him to death. But not because it was the law. And not because he had studied the case and assured himself that the person had been rightfully prosecuted in accordance with all of the laws of the State of Arkansas. He did it, because he had prayed on it. Let me say that again... He prayed on it. Not, as we note, did he say, "I upheld the law and prayed for forgiveness." But, instead, he prayed on it, and this was the answer.
I am frightened of any mere mortal who prays and thinks that God has told them what to do. I'd rather have a mere mortal who seeks the best information, asks the best questions, and uses the best impartial judgment of facts to be the person to have the nuclear missile lauch codes.
But what if the candidate has evidenced compassionate behavior in his past leadership role? What then?
Compassion towards some does not translate into compassion for all. What if compassion becomes an apocalypse on behalf of the greater good? Rather then suffer under the fear of evil, we have another leader who believes we have to destroy this village in order to save it?
No, thanks. I've seen that movie before.
I'm more concerned that a candidate for office be able to recite the Bill of Rights than the Ten Commandments.
In the end, I'm equally likely to deny any candidate for office my support based on their view of my rights with regard to my physical autonomy. Nothing says incompetent, unstable, and women are whores who are incapable of making good decisions, like telling me that the government will now be in charge of my uterus instead of me. And it's not just my reproductive rights, but my end of life rights as well. I don't want the government anywhere near my uterus, or any other part of my body for that matter, including my last beat of my liberal bleeding heart.
That someone even thinks the government is competent enough to substitute its judgment for my own when it comes to my physical autonomy is reason also enough to disqualify them for public office.
And it's also prima facia evidence that they are, quite simply nuts.
I've had enough of leadership by ideological nuts to last me for a lifetime.
13 Comments
Leave a comment
Not registered? Click on 'Sign-in' above and then select 'Sign up' in the lower right corner. Don't forget to click on the link in the confirmation email that will be sent to your email address.
You know what makes Huckabee scary in my book? The same thing that made Nixon scary, and Reagan scary: They are true believers. They believe everything they are saying with absolute faith and conviction. Again, scary. In these troubled and hyped and hyper frightened times, enough people are willing to substitute the judgment of someone, anyone, who has a high degree of certainty of whatever it is they believe, for their own judgment.
@@@@@@@@@@@
If it's any comfort, I watched the section of the Republican debate where there was a very pointed (almost hostile) question about whether the candidates believed in "THIS BOOK" and the questioner held up the bible, pointed to it and put it up to the camera lens. Anderson Cooper sort of translated the question a bit saying "Do you believe in the literal interpretation of the bibl.
The question went first to Giuliani who gave what I thought was a reasonable responsible. Not everything in the bible is "literally" ture and he used the example of Jonah in the belly of the whale. Giuliani says there are allegorical things in the bible etc..
Then the question went to Romney (our Mormon candidate - which is kind of scary even to the Protestants and Catholics). Romney flunked the test. He looked nervous and unsure how to answer, stuttered a bit and then said, I believe in the bible.... (without qualifications) Romney said it was the word of God.
Then went Huckabee, his answer was not as awkward or as scary as Romney's. Huckabee said the bible was "inspired" by God, I believe is what he said and that there are some interpretations of what the bible means in various places.
Romney, I thought, was the real loser of the night. His answers were tentative, unclear not convincing or just plain wrong.. Romney's Mormon connection does not help with liberal and moderates (like). I have read that the Mormon church is clannish, corrupt, patriarch and even cult-like. Chris Hitchens may the point that the Mormons not long ago were outright racists and refused to allow blacks into the church... etc..
I've had enough of ONE particular religion trying to dominate others.
That's all I will say on the Huckabee matter.
The thing is, I have met Huckabee, and looked into his soul...oops...That was actually George Bush talking about Putin...back before Putin puked (metaphorically) on George.
But I have met Huckabee and he is truly a nice guy, and often a thoughtful one and I have to say he is smarter than Reagan and nicer than Nixon. But he also scares me, for the very reasons Casey mentions above.
I am not touting him, I am merely predicting that he is going to resonate with the true believers because he really is one, as opposed to Romney and Giuliani, who I believe are questionable on the faith thing. (I don't mean that Romney is not a true Mormon believer but that his agenda is less values-based and more profit-based than anyone wants to admit.)
All that said, I am going to stop commenting because I will be watching the next round of Republican debates for the Washington Post and I need to be somewhat objective, which for me, means standing back and looking at what and how each one is doing in terms of clear messaging and behavioral signals. I find them all fascinating and complex and the movement analysis helps me to unpack a lot of the rhetoric, putting it in the realm of "actions speak louder than words."
Casey
Great style of analysis .. I wish you had time to do this with every candidate!
Casey
Great analysis! I wish you could do it for all of them!
I don't think Huckabee could be restaurant. He sounds too much like a movie.
I did hear the recap of the NPR debates (Dems) - since I listen to all those commentators, I felt a little more comfortable with the fact-checking they used but not with the candidates after hearing the fact-checking! Sounded like they made alot of global nice-sounding pie in the sky statements that they can't really back up. Hillary waffling on Iran, Edwards saying NO toys from China, Biden claiming gas went up $18/barrel at one time when it didn't & so on.
Karen
This is for you, if you ever come back here this round.
Did you ever read "The Man Who Mistook His Wife For a Hat" by the neurologist Olliver Sacks?
He talks about how a group of people were watching Reagan speak on television. Some of them had left hemisphere strokes which impaired their ability to understand what he was saying but not their right hemispheric ability to discern facial expression and body language. "He's lying," they said.
Others had right hemisphere strokes which left their speech intact but interfered with their ability to recognize spatial relationships and pragmatics of language, intent, facial expression/body language and so on. "He has bad prose," they said.
NMP,
I did read that and I say it proves that even those with only half a brain can be astute!
I've been reading about mirror neurons lately and thinking that we don't seem to have nearly enough to go around...
I am not touting him, I am merely predicting that he is going to resonate with the true believers because he really is one, as opposed to Romney and Giuliani, who I believe are questionable on the faith thing. (I don't mean that Romney is not a true Mormon believer but that his agenda is less values-based and more profit-based than anyone wants to admit.)
@@@@@@@@@@@
Well I don't like any of them... so it is hard to pick the most threatening, the most whacky, the most dangerous.
Pat Robertson - clearly a fascist, religious, wacko - is backing (endorsed) Giuliani. This might be less for G.'s religious beliefs and more for his militarization of the Middle East. I don't know.
McCain having been in the Senate and Ron Paul having been in the House - both for long, long periods - may have the most practical, least extremist positions. Paul despite some wacky ideas, has an excellent grasp of foreign policy with a smattering of understanding of economics (his social/domestic policies, I don't agree with of course but Paul does have a brain, he uses it, he brings facts to the table - unlike our current pResident.) I have seen McCain been extremely good questioner in Senate hearings, particularly on the Ralph Reed/ In dian casino/ Abramoff scandal which he chaired.
Romney, Huckabee, and Giuliani, for me are completely unknown quantities...
Regarding the strange (crumby and unfair I would say) primary system:
Michigan is proposing rotating regional primaries to be determined by lottery in 2012. I think this has to be fairer and more democratic than always Iowa and New Hampshire calling the shots every four years...
Casey - Amen, sister!
Excellent analysis, and I totally agree.
Karen, I think you are correct and we do need to worry about Huckabee, because he may just have that "kind of guy I'd like to have a beer with" (or a cup of coffee, anyway) feel about him. We all know where that got us last time.
This is what I noticed last night - the WaPo today has FOUR Op-Eds by right wingnuts.
http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2007/12/6/9051/18121/454/418552
Okay, somehow when i was editing this, I edited out part of a sentence that is part of the one where in i say that "karen and i have spoken on several occasions...In that sentence, i had a part that said something along the lines of 'Karen is far, far, far from a Huckabee supporter."
Even in re-reading this yesterday after I had posted it, I did catch how easily it could be construed that Karen was somehow a supporter of Huckabees.
So let me clarify. What Karen supports, is a candidate with compassion, the kind of compassion that Huckabee quite clearly demostrates that he is capable of. Further, Karen, and I both spotted the likeablity factor of Huckabee over a year ago and both of us, not just me, consider him dangerous for that very reason.
And more, last week in the debate preview thread, I predicted that Mike Huckabee would wind up sounding reasonable. I think in the comments thread, But I'm not sure, Karen had something about how big a problem this was.
I can't imagine any scenario underwhich Karen will be supporting Huckabee. Hoprefully that clarifies the situation. And I sincerely apologize to Karen since it seems apparent, even to my thickheaded reading, that I should have made that point clearer in the post itself. I thought I had done so in the part that specifically deals with the conundrum of what does one do when a candidate has some points, in this case, compassion, that you would support, but clearly wouldn't support the candidate. How do you reconcile that? What's your process?
For reasons that involve only my failures as a writer, I think some people here may have mistakenly thought that Karen is a Huckabee supporter. Again, she is not, though if she were, if anyone here were, bully for them. It's not my job to tell people who to support here at DCP. Rather, I was trying to explain my own process of reconciliation and analysis.
Hopefully, Karen will forgive my essayist shortcomings and will still let me stay at her house for free when I am in town, which I am sure she will. I imagine though, she's probably rethinking the whole, "Let's all move to Canada and be neighbors" thing....only joking here.
Also, to be clear, Karen hasn't said a word to me about this thread. Not One Word. This is just my intuition upon re reading the thread on a different day.
Next item:
NMP: You said this about the NPR "fact-checking"
did hear the recap of the NPR debates (Dems) - since I listen to all those commentators, I felt a little more comfortable with the fact-checking they used but not with the candidates after hearing the fact-checking! Sounded like they made alot of global nice-sounding pie in the sky statements that they can't really back up. Hillary waffling on Iran, Edwards saying NO toys from China, Biden claiming gas went up $18/barrel at one time when it didn't & so on.
I would urge you to go back and listen to the analysis of the debate again, and use a really critical ear.
Firs, it was Obama who said no toys from China. And I think that what he was perhaps saying, is that absent better central governments control of inspection methods, or the US companies sending their inspectors over, toys don't get in here. The analyst's point was that is you don't have China made toys, you don't have toys in America. That analysis is utterly false and stupid to boot. In the wake of the lead paint issue, Mattel now sends it own inspection and QC teams directly to China to cert the toys for them. Obama has talked about this in the past many times. the point being, that if you make the blanket statment that no toys from China, there will be IMMEDIATE adjustments made by manufacturing and Govt. on both sides to correct the problem. The analyst was making and idiotic conclusion flow from Obama's statement, for which he present NO EVIDENCE WHATSOEVER that his conclusion was right.
Fack checking the fact checkers. Again, I urge you to listen to the analyst's again, because I had a completely differencet take away. Fact checking is just that, Checking FACTS, period. Such as the person who checked Hillary's numbers about illegal immigrants. Many of the supposed fact checkers did not in fact check facts. They gave opinion as to the ramification of people's statements, which is not fact checking. They also made MULTIPLE personal opinion statements on candidate statements that were clearly their own subjective viewpoint, or an opinion of what the candidate might have been saying.
Also, I found the Joe Biden fact check to be incorrect. Biden never claimed there was a one day price spike in oil as a result of mistakes and non-disclosure on the iran NIE. And what the fact checker did NOT do was check the fact of the price change over the period of time from when the administration FIRST began saber rattling. He checked from the period of when the President talked about WWIII. Moreoever, he gave an OPINION, not a set of facts, to say that what Biden claimed wasn't possible, not because it hadn't happened, but because it couldn't happen. Logical fallacy all over the place, and bad research.
These are two of the more egregious example of the piss poor fact checking in that NPRsegment. the second part of the segment was better. The first part was just, I'm sorry here to be so harsh, but it was irritatingly ignorant, while taking advantage of NPR's audience trust.
If you have the time or desire to go back and give a listen, I'd be interested to hear your second take on it, and if you found my analysis of their "fact checking "valid.