Subscribe
Best Of
Links
Categories
Archives
Search
So, I’ve noticed that several blogs I like are sporting “I like Mike” [Huckabee] buttons and others are linking to Moms for Mitt [Romney]. I would like to support a candidate now, because I think support is more useful now than later (of course I will vote when the time comes). But–who to support? It sure isn’t obvious to me.
Anyway, I thought Huckabee deserved a closer look, since I am unwilling to vote for many of his opponents. I went over to his blog where they have a nice tab labeled “issues.”
So, where do Huckabee and I meet and part ways on the issues?
Huckabee: “My faith is my life – it defines me.
C&G: Certainly my own faith has defined my life, so that is something I respect. However, when he says “My faith doesn’t influence my decisions, it drives them” I start to worry a little. I do think *properly understood* separation of Church and State is important. In other words, it is very important that there be no state establishment of religion. On the other hand, I think religion often needs to be protected from the state, and that is where the U.S. occasionally struggles. Separation of Church and State should not mean that people of faith have to live out their faith in a windowless closet. It also does not mean that people of faith may not have a voice on political matters.
So, I am sympathetic to Huckabee on this issue, because we must not allow ourselves to be stripped of our ability to appeal to faith on political questions. When social issues such as abortion, stem cell research, same-sex marriage, and the death penalty are in question, partitioning our religious views from our other views not only robs us of our identities, it also robs us of our ability to think as integral people. However, I don’t know Huckabee well enough to be comfortable that he would be judicious and proper in his use of faith in political decisions that will have coercive results on a diverse nation of believers and nonbelievers. I know that at one of the debates, he mentioned not accepting evolution. If faith “drives” his decisions, what does this mean about money for science? I need some reassurance on this issue.
Sanctity of Life: Huckabee supports a constitutional amendment protecting the right to life. (The phrase used, “supports and has always supported”–strikes me as unnecessary mudslinging. I would imagine that someone like Huckabee would hope to persuade others to adopt his pro-life position. If having been pro-choice is classified as a moral failing, this task of persuasion becomes more difficult. Shouldn’t we simply embrace those who come to embrace the better view? Romney’s possible political opportunism is clearly an issue, but “has always supported” isn’t precise enough to pick that out. Although I am always leery of additional constitutional amendments, this tells me that Huckabee would probably attempt to nominate pro-life justices to the Supreme Court. I am in favor of that.
To be continued . . .
Comments
4 Responses to “Do I like Mike?”
Leave a Reply
A bit off topic…what do you think of supporting a non-front runner?
My own view is that supporting a candidate w/ little chance of winning is often an easy way out of the hard choices we face in politics. I’m interested in your thoughts relative to this question.
I realize that it is too soon, I suppose, to count Huckabee out.
oh yes, that was me. I meant to sign but somehow forgot. -m
Well, anonymous m, you sound like you, so I knew it.
Your question is an interesting one. I think maybe one’s motivations count. There’s not one right answer for every situation. Sometimes it’s important not to waste your vote, because politics is the practical, not the theoretical realm.
Other times–well, how is the right candidate ever going to win if we don’t vote for the man?
Otherwise explained: It is the nature of media coverage that front runners will be named early. Being a front runner has a lot of inertia to it. Early media exposure = more money = more solid front runner status. (I don’t think that this is a vast right wing or a vast left wing conspiracy, just the nature of the beast. 1) It’s impossible to cover 20 candidates well. 2) Two years before the actual contest, what is there to report on other than fluffy stuff like a) Who is ahead in the money race? and b)Who is ahead in Iowa? This is too bad, because 18 months later when things get a little more substantive and the candidates actually have more detailed platforms and plans, the contest is effectively over. (This isn’t reason to blame the candidates. It isn’t as though someone like Clinton or Romney sits down and comes up with their own healthcare plan in an evening. We wouldn’t want them to. Time, analysis, carefully picked advisors and analysts are all needed.)
So, why should I let CNN decide who my two choices are? I don’t want to vote for the President who is the best fundraiser. We’re not voting for University President after all). Citizens have a responsibility to seek out information on their own.
I think at this stage in the contest there is good reason to seek out the nationally known candidate (one of the 20 or so who get invited to the debates) who best reflects your ideal statesman. Then do everything possible to see that person advance in the polls and hang in there through the primaries. When the actual election rolls around, it’s time to revisit your strategy. Then it all depends on what the options are and how long the odds. The decision will usually work as a calculus. Occasionally, it will be important to make a principled stand despite no hope of victory.
yes, that seems right. thanks -m