Mike Huckabee is one seriously dangerous man. Hidden behind the smile is a stereotype of the unthinking, backwoods preacher, the Frederick March character from “Inherit the Wind,” updated and slicked up for public consumption.
I don’t mean to imply that the former Arkansas governor is ignorant. On the contrary, I think he knows what he’s doing, playing to his conservative base, to a group he obviously connects with, while also offering a second face — the smiling populist (faux populist is more accurate — though the mainstream Washington press has yet to realize that his economic program is the polar opposite of John Edwards’) who can tell a joke, an unthreatening version of a Moral Majority preacher. But he is no different than those preachers, as some of his recent comments demonstrate.
In an interview with Belief.net he offered this:
One of the comments you’ve made that’s getting a lot of discussion in the press is the point you made in the last day or so that we might need to amend the Constitution to have it apply more to God’s standards. Do you want to elaborate on that? In particular the question of people who might hear that and think, “Well, that’s a conversation stopper,” people who might agree with you on policy but feel that the constitution is secular document and should be driven by secular concerns rather than aligning it with God’s word.
Well, I probably said it awkwardly, but the point I was trying to make–and I’ve said it better in the past – is that people sometimes say we shouldn’t have a human life amendment or a marriage amendment because the Constitution is far too sacred to change, and my point is, the Constitution was created as a document that could be changed. That’s the genius of it. The Bible, however, was not created to be amended and altered with each passing culture. If we have a definition of marriage, that we don’t change that definition, that we affirm that definition. And that the sanctity of human life is not just a religious issue. It’s an issue that goes to the very heart of our civilization of all people being equal, endowed by their creator with alienable rights of life liberty and the pursuit of happiness. That was the point. The Bible was not
written to be amended. The Constitution was. Without amendments to the Constitution, women couldn’t vote, African-Americans wouldn’t be considered people. We have had to historically go back and to clarify, because there’ve been injustices made because the Constitution wasn’t as clear as it needed to be, and that’s the point.
Just to follow up on that question, according to that standard, if the Constitution and its amendments are subject to biblical interpretations, doesn’t that mean it would be subject to biblical argument over what the proper interpretation is? And where does that leave, say, nonbelievers or members of other faiths in a proudly pluralistic like our own when amendments to the Constitution are subject to a biblical interpretation?
I think that whether someone is a Christian or not, the idea that a human life has dignity and intrinsic worth should be clear enough. I don’t think a person has to be a person of faith to say that once you redefine a human life and say there is a life not worth living, and that we have a right to terminate a human life because of its inconvenience to others in the society. That’s the real issue. That’s the heart of it. It’s not just about being against abortion. It’s really about, Is there is a point at which a human life, because it’s become a burden or inconvenience to others, is an expendable life. And once we’ve made a decision that there is such a time – whether it’s the termination of an unborn child in the womb or whether it’s the termination of an 80-year-old comatose patient — we’ve already crossed that line. And then the question is, How far and how quickly do we move past that line? And the same thing would be true of marriage. Marriage has historically, as long as there’s been human
history, meant a man and a woman in a relationship for life. Once we change that definition, then where does it go from there? Is it your goal to bring the Constitution into strict conformity with the Bible? Some people would consider that a kind of dangerous undertaking, particularly given the variety of biblical interpretations.Well, I don’t think that’s a radical view to say we’re going to affirm marriage. I think the radical view is to say that we’re going to change the definition of marriage so that it can mean two men, two women, a man and three women, a man and a child, a man and animal. Again, once we change the definition, the door is open to change it again. I think the radical position is to make a change in what’s been historic.
So, Huckabee equates a woman’s right to vote and the end of slavery with same-sex marriage and abortion? So, Huckabee believes the Constitution should be amended to line up with his religious beliefs? Where does that leave me, as a nonpracticing Jew, or the millions of Muslims and Hindus in the United States? Or even Mitt Romney?
During the same interview, Huckabee outlined his vision of economic populism:
I’ve said that, that I’ve felt like as Christians and particularly even as Republicans, we needed to address issues that touched the broader perspective, and that included disease, hunger, poverty, homelessness, the environment. And it’s not a matter that we’re going to become left-wingers. I don’t think that at all. I think taking care of the earth is a matter of stewardship. It’s not about global warming, it’s about stewardship and responsibility. Things like hunger and homelessness. And it’s not about having a government program, it’s about simply reminding each of us as individual citizens that this is an area of our own responsibility.
Not about having a government program, but about individual responsibility — this is a refrain that the right has offered for years, but that has gotten us nowhere. Other social institutions should take care of these issues, he says, like that is some novel idea, some new concept that has not failed us over and over again, like the private institutions already in existence aren’t already over stressed.
This is the language of the pulpit, the language of someone more interested in saving our souls than in making our lives better now. The problem is that Mike Huckabee is not running for preacher, he’s not seeking the pulpit at a national church. He’s running for president.
And one other thing — courtesy of my friend Bill, who sent me this e-mail earlier today:
I know the Huckster is going off the deep-end, but I just got this quote off of CNN, with no examination whatsoever – in sucking up to the S. Carolinians, about their Confederate flag:
Later, in Florence, he repeated the remarks. “I know what would happen if somebody comes to my state in Arkansas and tells us what to do, it doesn’t matter what it is, tell us how to run our schools, tell us how to raise our kids, tell us what to do with our flag ? you want to come tell us what to do with the flag, we’d tell them what to do with the pole.”
Now that comment about schools could be read about knocking segregation. Not that I think he meant it, as he doesn’t seem the type, but maybe some code phrase? Or just stupidity?
Huckabee is not someone who can see beyond his own set of beliefs — a danger in a diverse, pluralistic society like ours. That he has been competitive in the Republican primary says quite a bit about the party that currently occupies the White House.
South Brunswick Post, The Cranbury Press
The Blog of South Brunswick
E-mail me by clicking here.
Hank Kalet 