Huckabee and Obama

"I think Obama is almost certainly going to win the Democratic nomination."

Argh, Gordy, you've just jinxed it!   ;-)

Well the race has officially started with a view from some of the Iowa voters.  This activity is very similar to a gun going off at the start.  I see Iowa as the beginning loud BANG from some mainly middle class/America, white voters with very little, if any, impact of who will actually become the next President.

I'm quoting here from the Washington Post, but I've seen the same breakouts from several sources:

"Thursday's turnout shattered the previous record of about 87,000 voters, with more than 125,000 projected to have caucused. Sixty percent of Republican caucusgoers described themselves as evangelicals, according to entrance polls. Those voters went for Huckabee over Romney by more than 2 to 1."

As a group, evangelicals are both highly motivated and highly organized.  The fact that they have once again apparently hijacked a state Republican party therefore comes as no surprise, at least to me.  I think the fact that they chose Huckabee, however, suggests two things.

First, this could be part of a still nascent but steadily growing sentiment among religious voters that concerns about the environment and poverty and health care are important moral issues that can not be fixed through charitable acts alone.  Some of them, at least, are coming to believe that systemic remedies are required, and that this will necessitate at least some role on the part of government, which they have always already recognized as our ultimate collective expression of will.

Second, this seems to me to show that for a lot of the Iowa Republican voters, social issues trump any and all economic or foreign policy concerns.  Rightly or wrongly, they seem to have trusted Huckabee more than anyone else when it comes to upholding their values on issues like abortion and gay rights, and perhaps the second amendment, as well.

Neither of these points bodes particularly well for traditional conservatism.  The blending of religious fervor and economic populism that these two points represent is a potentially significant force, and I don't mind telling you that I find it more than a little frightening.

While I welcome the help in the fight for social justice and the environment, I am always nervous whenever the motivation for anything is dependent entirely upon religious belief.  Religious expression has motivated some of our finest moments as a species, but like any other human endeavor, religion itself has historically all too often been hijacked by those with hidden agendas or simple lack of reason.

And as someone who always had more in common with traditional conservatives than with the neo-cons, I always worry about any movement further away from the common sense underpinnings of historical conservative theory.

One last point: both Obama and Huckabee ran extremely positive campaigns.  Many said it couldn't be done: that politicians have to go negative to win.  At least in Iowa that turned out to be incorrect, as Clinton's drug accusations against Obama and Romney's ad against Huckabee both backfired.

Interesting stuff.  :)

FWIW, I'm not supporting Obama. As much as I would love to be able to teach my 150 some odd children that yes, if they become rich, even they can become President someday, I just don't like his positions on immigration and some of the other major issues, and he's said some real stupid stuff about the third party advertising.

If I have crazy fans, and I want to remove the influence of crazy fans, that makes me a man of principle, not a "hypocrite" as Obama has said.

...they seem to have trusted Huckabee more than anyone else when it comes to upholding their values on issues like abortion and lack of gay rights...

There. Fixed that for ya.

As a defense for Huckabee, I am starting to see some interesting colors come out of the GOP particularly amongst the Country Club variety. For years, the GOP has ridden on the backs of evangelicals for almost 25 years. We had amply opportunity to seriously do something about abortion. When we gained the Congress in 1994, we could have passed a Constitutional Amendment protecting the sanctity of life which would have put the abortion issue to rest. But no, the GOP felt like using this issue as a political football every election cycle as well as numerous other social issues.

I am starting to doubt that the GOP was ever serious about the social issues but needed to peal off the old Roosevelt coalition in the South and rural areas. If one were to actually read the BIble in its entirety, one would find a socially conservative but economically progressive system that would discomfort conservatives and liberals alike. Many evangelicals are fed up with one party, the Democrats being totally hostile to them, and the GOP taking them for granted in the way that the Democrats expect African Americans to vote for them without question.

I think what scares folks is that Huckabee is a true believer and does not suddenly find God during primary season.  Which would be easier  for a pro-life, pro-traditional values, yety economically liberal/progressive individual? The GOP with the Wall Street crowd representing the sins of greed and materialism, or the Democrats currently representing the sins of lust and perversion? Or do we look to a Kingdom not of this world? I opt for the latter!

In closing, I will cast my vote for Huckabee come the Illinois primary. Unfortunately the GOP powerbrokers in Illinois will stop at nothing to make sure that the sins of lust, murder,  perversion,and greed are nominated in a former mayor of New York.

----

Robert Dunn

Ex-Leftist, Born-Again Conservative American

Mr. Dunn,

I have always hoped that the Dems would take abortion and social issues off the table by converting to the GOP side, then just argue about economic and foreign policy issues.  As Wayward said so elegantly, it ain't gonna happen.

And your rant about the GOP using abortion as a wedge issue sounds like a liberal talking point - maybe from all those days as a leftist :-)

IP,

By egaltariansm, I think D Boon is shooting for equal outcomes as opposed to equal opportunities.

Redstate, No, my point about abortion is that social conservatives are actually serious about ending abortion and protecting traditional marriage. By IPs statement, it proves my point that the GOP has abandoned a socially conservative message while insisting that Evangelicals continue to swarm to the polls and pull the lever for Flip Flopping Romney, or Cross-Dressing Rudy! I was for Thompson, but Thompson got in at the last minute and sounded too tired to actually campaign.

So why won't Democrats accept a socially conservative, yet economically progressive candidate?

Look if Illinois Republicans can insist on continuing to provide us with gubernatorial material like George Ryan and Judy Baar Topinka who support abortion all the way to the 8th day after birth, (extreme exaggeration of course), then why wont Dems be as open-minded as they claim to be and allow a candidate to surface who is a traditionalist on the social issues, and populist on economic issues. Can someone be both for universal health care and oppose Roe V. Wade? Can someone be abhorred by the filth spewing out of  cable and network television while upholding that the airwaves are owned by the people, not private interests? Can someone hold the traditional view that homosexuality is abnormal and support environmental stewardship of Gods creation? Should someone be allowed to support the public schools yet decry the banning of the Bible in them? These stances are unpopular in both camps because they make us face the question of community vs. chaos?

Its time for a new politics!

Robert Dunn

Ex-Leftist, Born-Again Conservative American

Can someone be both for universal health care and oppose Roe V. Wade? Can someone be abhorred by the filth spewing out of  cable and network television while upholding that the airwaves are owned by the people, not private interests? Can someone hold the traditional view that homosexuality is abnormal and support environmental stewardship of Gods creation? Should someone be allowed to support the public schools yet decry the banning of the Bible in them?

Yes, but they just can't run for President as a Democrat. 

There are numerous examples of pro-life Dem Congressmen that became pro-choice to advance their national prestige/viability in their party (Durbin and Gore to start).  It is a bigger litmus-test issue for them than the GOP.

IP said: "That sounds like a policy of government control of everything from your bedroom to your checkbook.  How exciting."

Indeed.

Robert:  The more you try to defend Huckabee the less attractive you make him to people who actually support the concept of limited central government to safeguard the People's liberty, including the liberty of Christians.

--

Glock21 Op/Ed

I'll ask again: do you think greed isn't good, IP?

I'll ask yet again for some evidence that the Federal government is capable of solving large problems.  You'll insist that it has, of course, without actually pointing to anything.

Charming.  Here's what you're looking for, written by me several hours ago in this same thread:

All the old folks living on social security's consistent checks don't matter.  All those kids graduating from public schools and going on to college are irrelevant.  All those poor folks who receive benefits so they don't starve to death are invisible.  If there are any problems at all, any areas where success has not been overwhelming, that proves that government is impotent to do anything besides fight wars.

Social security is wildly successful program.  Medicare, Medicaid, KidCare have saved millions from bankruptcy.  Public schools have helped give us the highest educated workforce in this country's history.  Welfare has saved millions the indignity of the homeless shelter.  AllKids helps families like mine protect our children's health without having to eat ramen five days a week.  The environmental regulations of the 70s and 80s have forced Americans to clean up our country, with wide degrees of success.  The Endangered Species Act has helped hundreds of species avoid extinction.  Should I go on?

You seem to have a very simplistic read on the history of this country.  I am not sure how anyone who rationally analyzes the role of government in 20th century can come away believing the only two success stories are the Civil Rights Movement and NASA.  Frankly, the Civil Rights Movement had almost nothing to do with the government.  It was a grass-roots, faith-based initiative that was propelled almost single-handedly by inspired citizens.  And NASA was little more than a research lab for the defense industry.

As for a primer on the difference between equality and egalitarianism: conservatives tend to support equality and liberals tend to support egalitarianism.  Equality meaning give everyone an equal chance and then let God, chance, or fate do the rest (this always conveniently avoids the idea that power is already entrenched and therefore equality is an illusion, but I digress).  Egalitarianism means you attempt to create a society in which the results are more equal.  In other words, massive wealth to a small percentage of citizens is unacceptable and policies are implemented to redistribute that wealth, at least in small degrees.

There is a lot of tension between these two notions and the country historically swings between the two poles.  Right now it is quite clear that the pendulum is swinging back toward egalitarian ideas and economic populism.  It will make for hard times for any conservative candidate as their ideas have long since played out and now sound about as fresh as Barry Manilow's Mandy.

I'm outta here.  Cheers!

Yes, you think greed is good.  Self-interest is the motivator for efficient and successful societies?  I couldn't disagree more, but so be it.

Not exactly a sterling track record for Federal successses, which is exactly my point.  Of course, maybe we just haven't yet given the Feds enough power or money to actually solve these problems?

I think you are refusing to acknowledge the successes of these programs.  Perhaps it's a "half-glass empty" story, but I doubt it.  I don't know that many folks who avoid Medicare, but even if they do those folks are probably not the ones the program was designed for.  Go back and read the history of how this kind of legislation comes into being.  It is not because there are no problems and the government just wants to interfere.  It is because there are serious problems that need to be addressed.  And yes, welfare was successful enough that we no longer have starving people in this country.  It had its problems, but I hardly think the problems with citizen welfare equal the abuses of the corporate class when it comes to manipulating government payouts.  But again, I digress.

What you are really looking for are the New Deal measures that were set in place to ensure our economy never tanks the way it did in '29.  For just one example I'll mention the FDIC, since almost everyone knows what that is.  The FDIC has guaranteed that no person with money in a US bank will ever be turned away from that bank again.  If you have money in a bank it is insured by the government.  I am not sure it is possible to over-estimate the importance of the FDIC when analyzing the prosperity of the 20th century.  The liberal reforms that took place during the early part of the century ensured the pieces were in place for the successes of the last half of that century.  It is only since Reagan, when this notion that the government is "the problem" came along that we have started to see the prosperity fail to trickle-down to the middle classes.

Gotta go!  Interesting stuff as always.

D. Boon,

  So far, I've been agreeing with you regarding successful Federal initiatives/programs regarding the enviroment, like the clean water/air regulations of the 70s and 80s.  As a counter-balance to that, I think you may need to stop and look at the wild proliferation of "green" products and goods that have come to the market place in the last few years, with (in my opinion) little to no influence from the government.  Meaning, the market is responding to the expressed desire of many Americans and developing products that people want; the first that came to my mind was enviromentally responsible cleaning agents for home use.

(It was first in my mind because I, as a consumer, was tired of smelling [and smelling like] chemicals after cleaning the house...)

On January 4th, 2008 at 07:36 PM, D. Boon said:  "You seem to have a very simplistic read on the history of this country.  I am not sure how anyone who rationally analyzes the role of government in 20th century can come away believing the only two success stories are the Civil Rights Movement and NASA.  Frankly, the Civil Rights Movement had almost nothing to do with the government.  It was a grass-roots, faith-based initiative that was propelled almost single-handedly by inspired citizens.  And NASA was little more than a research lab for the defense industry."

So Executive Order 9981 was a grass-roots, faith-based initiative?  Was Executive Order 10730 and Little Rock, Ark. as well?

On January 4th, 2008 at 11:51 PM, D. Boon said:  "...It was such a boondoggle that it is among the only Federal programs in history that was substantially reduced in size.  Inspiring.   Welfare can only be analyzed as a success or failure with the correct perspective...."

Are you the one who'll come down from the mountain and reveal the "correct perspective" on welfare programs?  Your comment comes off as incredibly patronizing to me.   You can defend your position and offer examples without being condescending to those who hold different viewpoints.  You've done it before... ( November 19th, 2007 at 01:03 PM)

HG

Reading a bad book would have been more productive than either of these activities

I also thought Matt did a good job live-blogging the caucus.  Of course, the Illini game was unfortunate.

On January 5th, 2008 at 09:19 AM, D. Boon said:  "HG - with all due respect, I wasn't being condescending when I talked about perspective.  IP and other conservatives like to paint welfare as a complete failure.  It is a common, recurring theme in conservative thought.  My point is that welfare is not designed to eliminate poverty.  It is designed to assist the poor in getting through tough times.  If we have the perspective that it is a failure because there are still poor people then it limits our ability to understand the "success" or "failure" of the program."
 
 
You may not have intended for the statement to come off sounding condescending, but, to me, it did.  It smacked too much of "this viewpoint is wrong and holds no value".  I went back through the entire thread, and re-read your comments and responses in particular; in this thread, you've consistently argued that on the basis of allieviating starvation, welfare programs have worked.  I wasn't trying to downplay or degrade your viewpoint, just point out that the beginning came off as condescending (for the reason I outlined above). 
 
To the degree you've argued in this thread (that welfare programs have helped people avoid out-and-out starvation and the privation of other basic needs), I would tend to agree with you that welfare programs have had success.  But my overall complaint with the entirety of welfare programs is based on how, too often, there seems to be generations of welfare receipients who don't try to move past being welfare receipients, who don't try and move themselves (and their families) forward.  My complaint is with chronic, generational...not abuse, because to me that implies some form of cheating, but generational reliance on the lifetime-crutch of welfare programs, instead of using them for a temporary safety net.  To me, that's where welfare is a failure.
 
And I fully understand that there are a host of inter-connected problems, blocks, challenges, aids, etc., that paint a much more complex and complicated picture of social welfare programs and their receipients.  We're talking about welfare programs as a monolithic block, which they're most assuredly not.  There are scores of Federal and state programs, with different goals, criteria, failures, and successes.
 
 
 
D. Boon:  "Besides, why take me to task for being "patronizing" and give IP a free pass when he writes stuff like:  You do like your cariacatures, and you like beating people over the head with them.  ... etc. etc. etc. ???  It's a little one-sided, dontcha think?"
 
Well, in the first place, because you're more than capable of arguing on your own behalf, without me having to defend you.  Secondly, it was your comment that got to me; if IP does something similar, I'll let him know.
 
 
 
 
HG

On January 5th, 2008 at 09:19 AM, D. Boon said:  "As for green products, I've used green products to clean my house for years but I hardly think this is the solution to global warming."

I never claimed buying green or organic products are a "solution to global warming".  I think, along with the enviromental regulations of the 70s and 80s that you mentioned earlier, that buying green or organic products (and even driving a high-MPG car) can lead to cleaner, nicer, better local and regional enviroments.  If you'll pardon the pun, to me it's natural for a conservative to also be a conservationist.  If you're looking for a "solution to global warming", I believe you need to look on the national and international levels.  But I think we may be going to far afield from the thread topic, so no more threadjacking, sorry...

As for the civil rights movement, I am not sure you can take all of the government's actions out of the context of the movement.  There is no doubt that the government's actions were important in the integration of the South and the restoration of full citizenship rights to black Americans.  But I would argue you have to look at the pressures the government was under from the movement in order to understand WHY the government acted the way it did.

Couldn't agree more, but what I was trying to get at was that civil rights groups, specifically the NAACP, were so well orgainized on a national level, and so widespread, that calling them "grass-roots, faith-based initiative[s]" is kinda ironic.  That was my (poorly executed) point. 

On a seperate note, I want to thank you for consistently (and persistently? ;-) ) arguing a liberal, left-of-center viewpoint on a local political blog that consistently runs counter to your stated beliefs.  It takes a confident person to do so, and i'm not sure I could do the same, going the other way, as you.  Thanks to you, and every one else who does so as well...

HG

 My question is, since biblically evangelicals are supposed to submit to government as long as the government does not pass a law that they have to deny Christ like the Soviet Union or Berkeley, why is a party that wants government out of peoples lives command the allegiance of so many evangelicals? It appears that the social conservative message contradicts the "government out of my life" message. To bring a country back to its "God Fearing" roots, one would most likely have to use government. Isn't the idea of vouchers another government program? What about the Faith Based Initiative that is now actually a new Department in the Federal Government? How can the two have this marriage? I am puzzled as to how the evangelical and libertarian stream was married together under Reagan? Perhaps its the Democrats stupidity of embracing the militant secularists that caused this weird marriage to form. In an ideal world, politics would be based on logic.

BTW, i do recognize human nature. The hard Left denies human nature and believes that humans behave or misbehave do to external factors like society, economics, race, gender, or whatever distinction. As a Christian, I acknowledge a flawed and sinful nature that distorts everything we do. Even acts of charity and kindness have a natural tendency towards selfishness.

IP, since when is promoting health the same way as forcing healthy lifestyles? People see the President as a symbol. Why is it wrong for a President to model or promote healthy choices? We have Bill Clinton as an obvious example of a negative role model.

----

Robert Dunn

Ex-Leftist, Born-Again Conservative American

Then I wish we would take pride as a country and focus on the government doing things well rather than just doing less of the bad stuff it's doing. It's ironic to me that whether I talk history, I'm chastised because teaching facts somehow "makes us ashamed of our country', when I have a lot of confidence in the potential of our country, while others do not.

Having pride in country without any government is usually based in eugenics, or rooting for laundry (to borrow a phrase from sports) or both. To clarify, I mean if the only thing we've got going for us is cool symbols, flags and songs, we don't have much. Unless you want to go the racial/ethnic nationalist supremacy route, which doesn't end in fun.

I'm not slagging our individualistic model--I've certainly seen plenty of communal societies where people sit around waiting for someone to do something good. But there's a good middle ground--everyone acting as an individual with their own individual skills and talents for the greater good. It certainly feels better to triumph on behalf of everyone than just get something for yourself. Why do you think I've made the decisions I have with my life? I've certainly experienced plenty of both kinds of success...

I'm not saying that it's not sometimes hard to think of others. This society has many of us so down that we have to work constantly on our own behalf to survive or "keep up" with some magic measuring stick. I do think that it always takes someone stronger to reach the higher happiness of taking care of others rather than just yourself.

If we search our hearts, I think most of us believe this--Mark and Gordy didn't get into politics just to help themselves--it wouldn't be worth it. Most of us don't tell our babies to "get a job and carry your weight--all 10 pounds 14 ounces of it!"

The main thing I disagree with you is that American society somehow values opportunity more than most other cultures. If anything, opportunity is sacrificed for individualism. Unless you mean "my opportunity" which tends to mean sacrificing EVERYONE's opportunity including your own in order to ensure that no one else is "getting over". Certainly with our segregated schools, and disparent basic human services we aren't promoting equal opportunity among children of our society.

Well, why do so many people buy cover girl mascara? Is it because they actually it is the best brand at delivering a lifestyle vital service? Or is it because they run a strong marketing campaign?

We do a good job advertising internationally, and we have a reasonable high quality of life, especially as compared to non-developed countries. We are also in close proximity to a bunch of economically depressed countries. Some would say that's not a coincidence--it's our economic imperialism that has destablized those areas and forced people to emigrate, but I'm not sure on that one yet.

This isn't to say that there aren't great opportunities here. Merely that interest in immigration is not equivalent to real opportunity.

It'd be interesting to look at imm/emigration rates between us and other countries with equal or higher quality of life indexes. Sorry I don't have a moment to do my own research. (Sincerely sorry...)

On January 5th, 2008 at 12:59 PM, D. Boon said:  "I disagree.  That is exactly the point.  Most Americans are now aware that addressing these issues is going to take more than "market-based" solutions..." und so weiter..

I agree it'll take more than just "market-based" solutions, but I think our difference comes down to how much power and control to give to the Federal government, without, as IP alluded to, growing a bureaucracy that I and many others think is already too bloated.

"This moment in US history demands activist, efficient and intelligent government solutions to our most serious problems.  And "market-based" solutions are not going to cut it." 

If you could show me a government-based (or even government-backed) solution that is all three...hell, just give me the last two...then I would probably be in favor of it.  But the problem, I think, comes in that any government solution won't stay efficient or intelligent.  The bureacracy would grow, and grow, and grow, and then, down the line, you'll get another governmental agency prone to nepotism, cronyism, inefficiency, and waste.  From my own work experience, it's darn near impossible to keep government (or quasi-government) units from becoming over-staffed and inefficient.  and I don't think that fact is likely to change.

(how 'bout a trade?  You give me an efficient and intelligent government solution to succesfully manage climate change, and i'll give you a star left-handed pitcher and two quality minor-league outfielders ;-) :-).  Sorry, pitchers & catchers report soon...)

Again, thanks for so clearly and intelligently detailing your point of view, and doing it swimming against the tide...

HG