Mike Huckabee took the high road in an interview last week, calling libertarian-leaning republicans who don’t support government healthcare and public schools “heartless, callous, soulless” and of course unamerican. Yes kids, advocating an idea of the federal government consistent with the US Constitution is unamerican. This is just further nonesense from a man who has been appropriately dubbed by Reason “America’s Life Coach.”
Republicans need to be Republicans. The greatest threat to classic Republicanism is not liberalism; it’s this new brand of libertarianism, which is social liberalism and economic conservatism, but it’s a heartless, callous, soulless type of economic conservatism because it says “look, we want to cut taxes and eliminate government. If it means that elderly people don’t get their Medicare drugs, so be it. If it means little kids go without education and healthcare, so be it.” Well, that might be a quote pure economic conservative message, but it’s not an American message. It doesn’t fly. People aren’t going to buy that, because that’s not the way we are as a people. That’s not historic Republicanism. Historic Republicanism does not hate government; it’s just there to be as little of it as there can be. But they also recognize that government has to be paid for.
Huckabee tries to rewrite history and declare that libertarianism is “new” (and has not been historically a part of the Republican Party). In 1975 Ronald Reagan embraced the libertarian movement, and while he acknowledged that he was opposed to the “no government” shade of the philosophy, he said:
If you analyze it I believe the very heart and soul of conservatism is libertarianism. I think conservatism is really a misnomer just as liberalism is a misnomer for the liberals–if we were back in the days of the Revolution, so-called conservatives today would be the Liberals and the liberals would be the Tories. The basis of conservatism is a desire for less government interference or less centralized authority or more individual freedom and this is a pretty general description also of what libertarianism is.
Now, I can’t say that I will agree with all the things that the present group who call themselves Libertarians in the sense of a party say, because I think that like in any political movement there are shades, and there are libertarians who are almost over at the point of wanting no government at all or anarchy. I believe there are legitimate government functions. There is a legitimate need in an orderly society for some government to maintain freedom or we will have tyranny by individuals. The strongest man on the block will run the neighborhood. We have government to insure that we don’t each one of us have to carry a club to defend ourselves. But again, I stand on my statement that I think that libertarianism and conservatism are travelling the same path.
Huckabee, on the other hand argues that historic republicanism is, well, his right-wing socialism. Really? Historic republicans supported public education and government healthcare? Cutting taxes and eliminating government is “not historic Republicanism?”
Again, Reagan made it quite clear, saying “I don’t believe in a government that protects us from ourselves.” Yet Huckabee’s view of Government as the prime shaper of social values, habits and benevolence completely contradicts this idea.
Even though I no longer consider myself a republican in any way – I have some nostalgic love for the party that birthed my understanding of economic conservatism. Despite the complete takeover of the party by the Neo-Conservative exiles from the FDR left, there was once some good in them. Sometimes I feel like Luke Skywalker pleading with Darth Vader to acknowledge the sliver of good still lingering after years of evil.
The Definition of Fascism
Huckabee, however, is unapologetically a fascist in the dictionary definition of the word. He is not like some republicans who were deceived by the allure of the dark side of big government and uncontrolled spending, but may yet return. Huckabee is a republican Sith and soon perhaps a Sith Lord as McCain’s VP.
Aside from the token issue of abortion, I challenge anyone to name a conservative value or principle that Huckabee holds (and sorry, but being a Christian does not mean one is “conservative”). Let’s look at wikipedia’s characteristics of fascism, which I think are fairly accurate:
…the following elements are usually seen as its integral parts: patriotism, nationalism, statism, militarism, totalitarianism, anti-communism, economic planning (including corporatism and autarky), populism, collectivism, autocracy and anti-liberalism (i.e., opposition to political and economic liberalism).
This is Huckabee’s philosophy. The government needs to plan and “be a market” for things like energy, education, healthcare and other traditional pet policies of the Democrats. His speeches are chalk full of patriotic, nationalist rhetoric and his first argument for or against ideas and policies is how “American” or “unamerican” they are – based, of course, on Huckabee’s vision of America.
Well, that might be a quote pure economic conservative message, but it’s not an American message. It doesn’t fly.
But this nationalism is rooted in populism:
People aren’t going to buy that, because that’s not the way we are as a people.
Which is rooted in collectivism.
He is opposed to social freedom – advocating a nation-wide ban on smoking, marriage definitions in the constitution and using the federal government to shape up those fat kids and save them from their own choices.
“Economic planning” is putting it lightly in the way Huckabee wants to use the government to run the farm, energy, education, healthcare and manufacturing industries:
If the government commits to being the primary user of alternative forms of energy, we have a market built in and, therefore — the big argument against having alternative energy is there’s no market for it. Let the government be a marketplace, and we’ll create the kind of demand that lowers the price rather than raises the price.
He supports the complete boondoggle of ethanol. In Michigan, he was told that ethanol has been a sham and then asked if the free-market should determine what kind of energy we use. Naturally, Huckabee countered (facts lacking) that ethanol is just dandy and that the president needs to lead the energy industry of the country:
I think ethanol and all biofuels are going to be an important part of the future energy needs of the country, but the accelerated pace at which we get there is critical for national security as well as for our own economic interest. We’ve got to come to the place where everything is on the table–nuclear, biofuels, ethanol, wind, solar–any and everything this country can produce. We once had a president who said, “Let’s go to the moon in 10 years,” and we were there in eight. And we did that when we started with a technology of bottle rockets when we got the thing launched. And we all saw that we can do it.
Not to mention:
We need more ethanol…
Instead of no new taxes, like Bush with historic federal spending increases, Huckabee supported and instigated tax increases of $933 per person in Arkansas during his eight years. And he advocated for this increase boldly, in one of the poorer states in the Union.
But this of course is real conservatism, libertarianism and constitutional restraint are, well “new” ideas that are unamerican.
Mike Huckabee represents everything that is wrong with the republican party. He embraces the move away from the conservative, constitutional roots of the party towards big government solutions to all of our social, economic and security problems. Constitution, laws and individual liberty be damned!
You may also be interested in:
Chris A, Colin:
I guess if the article had just been called:
“Populist oriented Huckabee makes Socialist leaning statements” you would have gotten a few yawns, but then we would have missed out on all this stimulating dialogue.
I’m sure with your “Zeal for the Truth”, you realize that you don’t have it all figured out and have the potential to gain new and added insight from folks who you may not immediately agree with.
I’m sure your views and philosophies have already evolved and grown over the years, so far, and it’ll be fascinating to see where they are when you get to my age. I’m reminded of my friends who are somewhat intolerant and judgemental on matters of faith, when I’ve asked them how their faith journey has evolved over the previous, say, ten years and what if another was at the beginning of that process. Did others judge you or encourage you on that journey?
So a fair question to you both: Where did your political philospohy begin and if it’s quite solid, why not share those beginnings so others may reach the same or similar viewpoints. And furthermore, as a possibility some others may have gone beyond and have more to add to it. How confident are you in these Libertarian views in how well they align with Biblical principles and God’s intentions for us and what parameters need to exist to provide a framework for success in your political philosophies, i.e. the role of Ethics, Natural Law, Responsibility, Virtue, etc.?
Mike in OK wrote: “Where did your political philospohy begin and if it’s quite solid, why not share those beginnings so others may reach the same or similar viewpoints.”
That’s a great question. I’ve been working on a series of articles to present my own political beliefs and influences. Colin’s influences and beliefs are different from mine (he’s anarchist, I’m minarchist), but as he comments on my essays I think his journey will be revealed. One area I will address is how I reconcile libertarian political beliefs with a biblical worldview.
Hey Colin, it might be a good idea for each of us to write a couple of paragraphs about our political and theological beliefs. We can add that to the authors section, so that people know our biases and our worldview. If I ever get around to finishing my article series we can take that as a starting point.
Mike, I really don’t approve of the paternalistic tone in your latest comment. I find it belittling and arrogant (if if, as I am sure, you didn’t intend it that way), but I will gladly answer the portion of your response that I think has value:
My political philosophy began right where I accuse Huckabee of being, Christian Socialism. In opposition to natural rights philosophy, I would have considered myself a communitarian republican. I was for socialism unapologetically. Over time (10 years or so), my views have completely shifted as I have learned new things and made mistakes.
I am fully confident that, while the bible has almost nothing to say about political philosophy, that the natural derivation of Christian principles is at best ignorant tolerance towards the state, and at it’s most extreme may be complete detachment from it. “Natural rights” as such, is merely a secular term for principles that existed first in God’s order.
But that is deeper philosophy, and an area where I still feel there is a lot of searching. I am much more confident in the articulations – free-market capitalism, personal freedoms and liberty in general are clearly very biblical, while it is just as clear that socialism, taxation (by Christians), infringing other’s natural rights, fiat money/inflation, militarism and so on are definitely against greater biblical principles (stealing, murder, bad weights and measures, etc…).
I don’t mind doing this, but I am still quite “up in the air” on several areas. I may have to write my own personal political exploration series (even if it isn’t published) before I have an idea.
Colin,
Sorry, I didn’t mean it that way at all. I’m just a big picture guy who places a high value on self reflection. Your blog title seems to me a statement of purpose. I meant to make a point of philosophy as to the dynamic nature of our understanding. Hopefully no offense. I think your sharing those points of journey in thought and philosophy are very interesting and pertinent. A point of reference in a dialogue is all the more helpful in meaningful discussion, IMHO.
I’ve spent less time studying those areas of thought and more time lately about how to properly graze cattle on grass. You may seave me some time in sharing your discoveries as you’re both obviously quite intelligent. If you ever need some advice on how to raise livestock without affordable grain, check back with me or look up the master, Joel Salatin. His is almost the only sustainable model i know of in this country.
“And furthermore, as a possibility some others may have gone beyond and have more to add to it. How confident are you in these Libertarian views in how well they align with Biblical principles and God’s intentions for us and what parameters need to exist to provide a framework for success in your political philosophies, i.e. the role of Ethics, Natural Law, Responsibility, Virtue, etc.?”
Good question. I think Colin has answered many of these questions for himself in previous articles. Maybe he can refer you to some of them.
As for me, I lean Libertarian because I believe liberty is absolutely essential in maintaining the country the founders envisioned. A free America is the only America. I really don’t think it is the role of government to restrain people from making their own decisions, so long as those decisions don’t harm anyone else. When it comes to the Bible, the only God-sanctioned government in the purest sense is a Theocracy. But I’m not inclined to modify the Constitution to match the Bible, like some folks (wink wink). Such a feat could not realistically be accomplished unless we are talking Social Gospel or something.
As for other countries, they have the sovereign right to form their own systems of government. If they want to be Social, I have no problem with that. But our government is of, by, and for the people.
We know that God sovereignly acts through governments and heads of state because he did so in the Bible and he doesn’t change; plus I think the eschatological passages would concur. However the New Testament gives us one God-ordained function for government: the punishment of evildoers (1 Peter 2:14). The problem of government expanding the definition of “evildoer” to serve their own purposes is that it violates the spirit of what is stated here. I believe the usage of the word in this context has to do with harming other people, which would correspond with Genesis 9:6.
“Whoso sheddeth man’s blood, by man shall his blood be shed: for in the image of God made he man.”
Outside of the theocracy of the Old Testament, I don’t believe that God has ever sanctioned the use of government to control people or to prevent them from harming themselves. And if we would try to institute a theocracy in our country today, it would be a false theocracy. The only true theocracy will not be in force until Christ returns.
6For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given: and the government shall be upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counsellor, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace.
7Of the increase of his government and peace there shall be no end, upon the throne of David, and upon his kingdom, to order it, and to establish it with judgment and with justice from henceforth even for ever. The zeal of the LORD of hosts will perform this.
Isaiah 9:6,7
Mike, thanks for the invitation for some pragmatic advise. I’m in England for the next three years, so livestock and land is less of an option. Maybe when I get back (you should stay connected to the site in the meantime), I’ll take you up on it.
Mike, where exactly are you in Oklahoma? Just asking because my wife and I are from there. We have been in the Sunflower state for the last few years.
You’re right, that statement could easily be taken as offensive.
As I don’t know you very well, it’s not clear to me how open-minded you are to weigh and analyze views from outside of your spectrum. And of course if you do, this can be taken as a direct challenge.
I have a personal motto: “The obvious isn’t”.
I believe it and I feel the need to verify the obvious, at the risk of annoying many people, including my wife. But then so many other times, I find that motto to be re-proven time and again. So I end up risking offense of intelligent, right minded folks or missing the obvious.
I assume the offense was because you already hold those attitudes, by which my statement is condescending.
“I’m sure with your “Zeal for the Truth”, you realize that you don’t have it all figured out and have the potential to gain new and added insight from folks who you may not immediately agree with.”
Mea Culpa, Mike
Chris A,
I’m in North East Oklahoma in the foothills of the Ozarks, just East of Lake Fort Gibson and North of Tahlequah. We moved here from San Diego in late 2005 in a dramatic move that we believe was inspired by the Holy Spirit. I quit my (excellent) job, sold my house and moved, with my wife and seven children, to a remote, but beautiful area closeby to a “old rite” Benedictine Monastery. We wanted to make a radical step away from materialism and towards self sufficiency. I’m not really a radical guy, but I’m pretty fearless and I like adventure and I think it’s great for my children to experience. If you want to know more about it. maybe I can share is offline.
BTW, I think the best investment right now is in goats:
“Proverbs 27
23 Know well the condition of your flocks,
And pay attention to your herds;
24 For riches are not forever,
Nor does a crown endure to all generations.
25 When the grass disappears, the new growth is seen,
And the herbs of the mountains are gathered in,
26 The lambs will be for your clothing,
And the goats will bring the price of a field,
27 And there will be goats’ milk enough for your food,
For the food of your household,
And sustenance for your maidens. ”
Thanks and God Bless, Mike
I’m familiar with that part of the state. Its absolutely beautiful. You ought to start a blog about your self-sufficiency adventure…really. My wife is from northeast Oklahoma – Hominy to be exact, which is west of Tulsa. I’m from Pottawatomie county, which is central Oklahoma. Definitely not as beautiful and green as where you are. God bless you and your family.
Chris,
You might find this interesting. These folks are just down the road from us. The Benedictines are the same order that was around in the Middle Ages when things got ugly. The history of St. Benedict was truly amazing. The Monks sing the Gregorian chants; it’s very beautiful. Ora et Labore. They are a traditional rite; all in Latin, just like the old days.
http://www.clearcreekmonks.org/
Mike, that is a very interesting site. I can’t say that I’ve ever been to Hulbert.