Huckabee obeys Reagan's Eleventh Commandment- and God's Eighth
When I first got in contact with the Huckabee campaign (after the exchange with Fred Thompson related previously), they asked me about myself. I mentioned that I had been a Lutheran minister for twelve years. They immediately decided they wanted me to join something called "Pastors for Huckabee." I explained that I wasn't a pastor; that in our polity an ordained person without a call was a lay person. Evidentally, though, being a "reverend" was good enough. They emphasized that what they were after was personal endorsements, and they stressed that neither denominational nor congregational approval was implied.
And so it was that I found myself this afternoon in a place where I never thought in a million years I'd be: on the same rostrum with Tim and Beverly LaHaye.
The Huckabee campaign, you see, invited me to be there for a press conference announcing the formation of this "Pastors for Huckabee" thing. With some misgivings, I returned to the Des Moines headquarters some time after leaving the grand opening there, in order to attend that press conference.
I saw exactly one Roman collar there, and one yarmulka in the crowd. There were a great many more Hispanic and African Americans, somewhat to my surprise. I had forgotten how ecumenical events in Iowa generate "amens;" the Methobapticostals here far outnumber us children of the magisterial Reformation.
The governor began by giving what I thought was an extremely appropriate and well-worded statement about how important the values represented by the Judeo-Christian tradition were to our history, and the desirability of our returning to them as a nation. He emphasized that he was not interested in imposing his religion on anybody, but rather only in summoning us all back to values we once held in common. Then he announced that the LaHayes were there to endorse him- and sure enough, there they were.
After mentioning Tim LaHaye's many-volumed saga of chiliastic nonsense, Left Behind, and the (deplorable) fact that it has outsold several books by John Grisham and other best-selling authors, Gov. Huckabee introduced Beverly. Her statement was, on the whole, quite reasonable and appropriate.
Unfortunately, Dr. Tim's address was replete with all sort of revisionist blather about how the Founding Fathers were a bunch of Christians. There is a strong case to be made, of course, that theism- or, more precisely, Deism- played a truly major role in the founding of our nation; in fact, the key to the entire theory of government espoused by the Founders was that the true Source of human rights and political authority was neither brute force nor the magnanimity of government, but Jefferson's Deistic "nature and nature's God." But LaHaye is in denial about that point; in fact, he specifically denied the historical fact that the religion of the Founders was that of the Enlightenment rather than the Reformation, and most frequently one form or another of Deism. As I stood there listening to him, I kept asking myself existential questions, like "Why am I here?"
But taken as a whole, the press conference was an appropriate homage on Gov. Huckabee's part to the role of faith in the American community- and specifically of our biblical heritage as a major influence informing our traditions. His theme was that our varied religious traditions ought to be seen as sources of strength and commonality rather than as embarrassments or as things which divide.
Huckabee emphatically condemned the "push polling" attacks on Mitt Romney which someone has been doing- allegedly on his behalf, though he did not rule out the possibility that he, rather than Romney, might have been the real target. "This kind of thing doesn't help you. And it certainly hasn't helped us," he pointed out. He agreed with the Romney campaign that the entire matter should be thoroughly investigated by Iowa Attorney General Tom Miller.
As Gov. Huckabee left, I shook his hand and interjected essentially the same question I'd asked Fred Thompson a few weeks ago: "What do you think of Cruzan v. Director- the Supreme Court decision which legalized starving non-terminal patients to death?" His response was instantaneous: "I think it's terrible."
And then something interesting happened. I replied, "Well, I asked Fred Thompson that question, and he doesn't agree with you." He nodded a bit awkwardly, and then simply moved on. He wouldn't comment on what Fred Thompson thought.
The question has been asked of late as to why Gov. Huckabee is so reluctant to speak ill of Rudy Giuliani. He addressed that question during the press conference. Somebody pointed out that he was undergoing a great many attacks from his fellow candidates. "Really?," he deadpanned. "I hadn't noticed."
And then he simply pointed out that he has chosen not to attack them in response. Fred Thompson, he pointed out, had issued six press releases attacking him on Sunday morning alone. "The rest of us were in church," Huckabee said, "but Fred was busy issuing press releases."
For Huckabee, that's hardball.
Mike Huckabee, insofar as he is able, seems determined to observe Ronald Reagan's Eleventh Commandment: "Thou shalt not speak ill of another Republican." More than that, this former Baptist preacher seems to put a great deal of stock in God's Eighth Commandment (which, being a Baptist, I suspect he thinks of as the Ninth).
Martin Luther explained that commandment this way:
It could be, of course, that Gov. Huckabee knows about the personal tragedy which helped form Sen. Thompson's view of the kind of euthanasia legalized by Cruzan. Probably his lack of comment on Thompson's position was motivated at least in part by charity. But in any case, even when confronted with a position held by an opponent on which he could have scored political points both with me and with social conservatives generally, he chose not to speak ill of Fred Thompson.
Which I think speaks very well of Mike Huckabee.
And so it was that I found myself this afternoon in a place where I never thought in a million years I'd be: on the same rostrum with Tim and Beverly LaHaye.
The Huckabee campaign, you see, invited me to be there for a press conference announcing the formation of this "Pastors for Huckabee" thing. With some misgivings, I returned to the Des Moines headquarters some time after leaving the grand opening there, in order to attend that press conference.
I saw exactly one Roman collar there, and one yarmulka in the crowd. There were a great many more Hispanic and African Americans, somewhat to my surprise. I had forgotten how ecumenical events in Iowa generate "amens;" the Methobapticostals here far outnumber us children of the magisterial Reformation.
The governor began by giving what I thought was an extremely appropriate and well-worded statement about how important the values represented by the Judeo-Christian tradition were to our history, and the desirability of our returning to them as a nation. He emphasized that he was not interested in imposing his religion on anybody, but rather only in summoning us all back to values we once held in common. Then he announced that the LaHayes were there to endorse him- and sure enough, there they were.
After mentioning Tim LaHaye's many-volumed saga of chiliastic nonsense, Left Behind, and the (deplorable) fact that it has outsold several books by John Grisham and other best-selling authors, Gov. Huckabee introduced Beverly. Her statement was, on the whole, quite reasonable and appropriate.
Unfortunately, Dr. Tim's address was replete with all sort of revisionist blather about how the Founding Fathers were a bunch of Christians. There is a strong case to be made, of course, that theism- or, more precisely, Deism- played a truly major role in the founding of our nation; in fact, the key to the entire theory of government espoused by the Founders was that the true Source of human rights and political authority was neither brute force nor the magnanimity of government, but Jefferson's Deistic "nature and nature's God." But LaHaye is in denial about that point; in fact, he specifically denied the historical fact that the religion of the Founders was that of the Enlightenment rather than the Reformation, and most frequently one form or another of Deism. As I stood there listening to him, I kept asking myself existential questions, like "Why am I here?"
But taken as a whole, the press conference was an appropriate homage on Gov. Huckabee's part to the role of faith in the American community- and specifically of our biblical heritage as a major influence informing our traditions. His theme was that our varied religious traditions ought to be seen as sources of strength and commonality rather than as embarrassments or as things which divide.
Huckabee emphatically condemned the "push polling" attacks on Mitt Romney which someone has been doing- allegedly on his behalf, though he did not rule out the possibility that he, rather than Romney, might have been the real target. "This kind of thing doesn't help you. And it certainly hasn't helped us," he pointed out. He agreed with the Romney campaign that the entire matter should be thoroughly investigated by Iowa Attorney General Tom Miller.
As Gov. Huckabee left, I shook his hand and interjected essentially the same question I'd asked Fred Thompson a few weeks ago: "What do you think of Cruzan v. Director- the Supreme Court decision which legalized starving non-terminal patients to death?" His response was instantaneous: "I think it's terrible."
And then something interesting happened. I replied, "Well, I asked Fred Thompson that question, and he doesn't agree with you." He nodded a bit awkwardly, and then simply moved on. He wouldn't comment on what Fred Thompson thought.
The question has been asked of late as to why Gov. Huckabee is so reluctant to speak ill of Rudy Giuliani. He addressed that question during the press conference. Somebody pointed out that he was undergoing a great many attacks from his fellow candidates. "Really?," he deadpanned. "I hadn't noticed."
And then he simply pointed out that he has chosen not to attack them in response. Fred Thompson, he pointed out, had issued six press releases attacking him on Sunday morning alone. "The rest of us were in church," Huckabee said, "but Fred was busy issuing press releases."
For Huckabee, that's hardball.
Mike Huckabee, insofar as he is able, seems determined to observe Ronald Reagan's Eleventh Commandment: "Thou shalt not speak ill of another Republican." More than that, this former Baptist preacher seems to put a great deal of stock in God's Eighth Commandment (which, being a Baptist, I suspect he thinks of as the Ninth).
Martin Luther explained that commandment this way:
Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbor.
What does this mean?--Answer.
We should fear and love God that we may not deceitfully belie, betray, slander, or defame our neighbor, but defend him, [think and] speak well of him, and put the best construction on everything.
It could be, of course, that Gov. Huckabee knows about the personal tragedy which helped form Sen. Thompson's view of the kind of euthanasia legalized by Cruzan. Probably his lack of comment on Thompson's position was motivated at least in part by charity. But in any case, even when confronted with a position held by an opponent on which he could have scored political points both with me and with social conservatives generally, he chose not to speak ill of Fred Thompson.
Which I think speaks very well of Mike Huckabee.
Comments
I am Lutheran and very conservative socially and fiscally. The idea of federal taxes going up instead of down bothers me as much as our borders or national defense being compromised. I personally back Fred Thompson and will back the party's choice and pray its not Guiliani or Romney.
My question to you is, what is Gov. Huckabee's stand on taxes and general government intruision into our lives. His convictions and faith intrest me (as does Thompson's, but what I have heard about taxes and fees in his state scare me. I fear he's like Jimmy Carter, giving money to people where churches and private charities should be doing that.
For fairness and clarity, as I said, I back Thompson, but I also recognize that Huckabee is doing well. Thanks in advance for your help.
John
Where do you get the idea that our borders or our national defense would be compromised under Huckabee? If you think that, you haven't been paying attention!
And who says that churches and private charities- which have never had resources adequate to meet the social needs some conservatives so glibly and arbitrarily assigned to them- should be the ones giving money to those people?
As to taxes, payihg our national bills would be nice. And some areas of our lives require government intrusion. The killing of others by second hand smoke, for example, seems clearly to fit into the divinely ordained responsibilities of the Kingdom of the Left Hand.
I would think you would be more concerned that Sen. Thompson sees nothing wrong with euthanisia by starving sick people like Terri Schaivo who are not terminal to death on the basis of hearsay evidence provided by those with the most to gain by having them out of the way.
I thought Fred Thompson had given a later satisfactory answer in an interview w/ George Stephanopulous (sp?) where he had said it was ultimatly a state decision. I beleive that a state should decide that issue, not the federal government. I am gladended by the idea of having a potential president with some (terribly unfortunate) experience in the issue.
As for taxes being increased to help the less fortunate, I have always felt that churches should be not only involved in the assistance and care, but should take the lead in helping them. I know that things like welfare and other govt programs will always be there to help, but the idea of increasing that help bothers me.
My wife has lung issues, so I am familiar with the need for a smoking ban. I think the states should do it, not the feds.
I look forward to more discussions as I continue to try and find the truth about whos better for the country.
I'd feel alot better (you might want to read the entries on that subject on the blog for the next couple of weeks). The fact remains, however, that Sen. Thompson's response amounts to the assertion that states should have the right to legalize the murder of sick people. Unborn babies, too.
Beyond that, though, Fred Thompson has botched the life issue about every way possible (you might want to read my entry on the Stephanopoulos article, BTW). He has helped the pro-choice crowd raise the specter of laws jailing women having abortions- something nobody but pro-choice scaremongers have ever raised. His flubbing of the Schaivo issue in his conversation with me- if Federalism is his concern, why didn't he say so?- is of a piece with the confused way he's approached the whole issue. Bottom line: I don't think he's really thought these issues through, and he's flying by the seat of his pants.
Incidentally, in case you are not aware of it, I supported Fred Thompson from the very moment he let it be known that he was considering running. I switched to Huckabee only when he told me he was in favor of euthanasia by starvation being left to the family of the people involved. I spend a couple of weeks trying to get somebody- anybody- at the Thompson campaign to at least say what he finally did say: that Cruzan v. Director should be overturned, and the matter returned to the states.
In the last analysis, though, it simply comes down to the point that federalism is not the matter where murder is concerned.
And while concern for Federalism is a fine thing, should states be able to make it legal to give others lung cancer? Point to ponder.
I'm curious about one thing: what is it about abolishing the IRS and going to a national sales tax, as Gov. Huckabee advocates, that bothers you? You need to do more research on Huckabee's tax record in Arkansas, btw- which is being badly spun. There is a limit to what the private sector can do in the face of infrastructure and social service collapse of the degree Arkansas suffered under Clinton and Tucker.
Sometimes tax increases are the only way.
Unfortunatly, I have never had the experience of living in a place a poor as Arkansas and was lookin at it from the prespective of someone who doesnt need the assistance of the government to that degree.
I have no trouble with lowering taxes or removing the IRS. I do wonder though, is it possible? Theyre so entrenched I wonder if it possible. I like to think of them as the Mongol Horder of the US...coming in and taking everything (or so it seems at times). I would cheer if they really did disappear.
I also have to admit, I havent been as well informed on the euthenasia issue as I have been abortion. I will have to do some thinking (and praying) on the issue. I guess I do wonder why you think someone as pro-life as Thompson is would be anti-abortion but accept the states deciding to legalize euthenasia? I guess I dont see the link and if you do I'd appriciate some instruction on this.
Thank you again for the discussion. I spent part of yesterday discussing the issues and candidates with my family after church. BTW....the family is all over the map! Ahh gotta love indecision! lol
The thing is, Fred Thompson lost a daughter several years ago, and apparently had to make the decision to pull the plug (though the facts were not made public, the general belief is that she was on artificial life support). It was the reason he quit the Senate, and it still affects him emotionally. His belief that matters of this sort should be left to the families of the people involved, I believe, overrides his ability to see the distinction between "pulling the plug" on somebody being kept alive by artificial means- thereby letting nature take its course- and interfering with nature by depriving a person who is not dying and would not die otherwise of nourishment, thereby starving that person to death.
He can't seem to see the difference between letting
a person die (as he himself did with his daughter), and making that person die. He doesn't seem to understand the moral distinction between "pulling the plug" and actual euthanasia by starvation.
Cruzan v. Director is the Supreme Court decision which made administering food and water to a comotose patient legally a type of medical treatment, thus effectively abolishing that distinction as a matter of law. My question for Sen. Thompson was about Cruzan v. Director. He answered by engaging me in a discussion of the parent's role in end-of-life decisions.
As you pointed out earlier, he told Stephanopoulos later that he
was in favor of leaving this matter to the states. Ironically, if he had told me that (it was, after all, the question I'd asked him), I would probably been, if not totally satisfied, at least satisfied enough to have stuck with him. But I didn't hear about the statement on the Stephanopoulos program until weeks later, after I'd switched to Huckabee. And I made several inquiries with the Thompson campaign before I did that, trying to get somebody to tell me that we had miscommunicated, and that Thompson's position was what he later said that it was on the Stephanopoulos program.
You don't seem to be aware that while his personal position on abortion and on euthanasia by starvation are different, his political question on these matters is identical. He does not favor their abolition by constitutional amendment. Rather, he wants the matters returned to the states. Now, as a pragmatic matter, I happen to agree with him; we are never going to get a constitutional amendment banning abortion or nutritional euthanasia
nationally. This would be the morally appropriate thing to do, of course; there can be no moral right even for the individual states to legalize murder.
But the Human Life Amendment will never pass, and the 8-1 margin by which the objectionable section of Cruzan was adopted by the Court makes it clear that even if we get a Supreme Court willing to reverse Roe, Cruzanis in no danger. Thompson's approach pragmatically is exactly right; it's the only way either injustice, as a practical matter, can be righted (other than the appointment of another anti-Roe Supreme Court justice, which of course wouldn't help with Cruzan.
So I could, as it turns out, have lived with Thompson's position. It's too bad we couldn't have clarified that position in our conversation, or had it clarified for me by Thompson's staff in the weeks thereafter. Thompson's blind spot where nutritional euthanasia are concerned, while understandable, does bother me because the reversal of Cruzan in particular will require the moral leadership of a president and an effort to change not only the law but the minds of a nation badly misinformed by the inaccurate and massively biased reporting on the Cruzan case.
But it's not really that which caused me to jump off the Thompson bandwagon. It's the fact that Thompson keeps sticking his foot in his mouth on these issues, unnecessarily raising doubts over and over again in the minds of we who care about these issues. Nobody ever suggested jailing women who have abortions- nobody, that is, except pro-choice propagandists who use the lie that the pro-life camp wants that as a talking point. Did Thompson really have to help them by saying publicly that he, for one, didn't want to do that?
Did he even know that nobody else did, either- any more than he understood that Cruzan would have to be struck down somehow before the states could make law on that issue, too? Or any more than he understood the facts (or apparently, judging from his conversation with Stephanopoulos, understands them now in the Terri Schaivo case? A guy who did what could be called lobbying for a pro-choice group (however innocently)and who has a record of being pro-choice for most of his political career really should be a great deal better informed and to know his own mind better on life issues before he runs as a pro-life candidate!
On the other hand, when I asked Huckabee about Cruzan, while I did have to explain what the case was about, his response was plain and simple: "I think it's terrible."
Huckabee's tax plan, btw, would abolish the income tax and substitute a national sales tax. A much smaller bureaucracy would indeed be required to administer to it. But the IRS, as it now stands, would simply not have anything to do.