“He’ll be missed in the 2012 race, and not just because his absence promises to dramatically reduce the entertainment value of the Republican debates.Huckabee definitely had his flaws. Sometimes he said things without thinking just to win political points (as when he said that Obama grew up in Kenya and was inculcated with anti-imperialist political ideas by his father and the Mau Mau Revolution, when in fact Obama was born in Hawaii and spent his early years in Indonesia and did not even travel to Kenya, his father’s birthplace, until later in life).
He’ll be missed because he embodied a political persuasion that’s common in American life but rare in America’s political class. This worldview mixes cultural conservatism with economic populism: it’s tax-sensitive without being stridently antigovernment, skeptical of Wall Street as well as Washington, and as concerned about immigration, family breakdown and public morals as it is about the debt ceiling.”
But what Huckabee represented was a unique place in politics: An understanding that compassion for people must trump towing the party line on all things. He appealed to those of us who Douthat calls the “disaffected demographic” – “whose hostility to big government coexists with anxieties about corporate power.”
Salon's David Weigel wrote yesterday in his article, "Huckless: Mike Huckabee's decision marks the end of compassionate conservatism":
"Without Huckabee, this race actually shifts further to the right.
That's because Huckabee is (or was) the last Republican with real national political pull who didn't believe in economic conservative orthodoxy. He believes in an activist government. He favored a smoking ban in Arkansas, and for a while he favored expanding it to all 50 states. He's OK with Michelle Obama running an anti-obesity campaign from the White House. (Bachmann said the first lady was implementing a "nanny state," and most conservative voters agree with her.)
If that seems like a minor spat, it wasn't—it comes out of Huckabee's philosophy about what government should do. In December 2007 and January 2008, he feuded with Rush Limbaugh, who said Huckabee was simply ‘not a conservative’ given his views of what government was good for.”What we had in Huckabee was someone who found the new Tea Party libertarianism immoral, and that the Republican Party is going in the wrong direction. Weigel shared something that Huckabee said in an interview:
“'The greatest threat to classic Republicanism is not liberalism,' he told reporter Will Mari. '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 health care, so be it.'"In an age when evangelical Christians are caricatured as pro-wealth, pro-big business, pro-war, anti-help for the poor, anti-care for immigrants, anti-government, Mike Huckabee (an ordained Southern Baptist minister) stood out as someone who actually tried to figure out how government could work for the common good… maybe even for Kingdom principles. He didn’t always get it right, but at least he was trying to think above the fray of political rhetoric.
Will there be another?
23 comments:
Funny...I was a Huckabee supporter in 2008 who has since soured on him somewhat. I could have supported him as the nominee, I think, but I doubt he'd have been my choice in the primary. You didn't mention the thing that first made me sour on him: his response to the pardons he issued was disgusting. He may well have had good reason to pardon all of the people he did; I can't determine that. But the obfuscating, Clintonesque way he approached it...icck.
But considering the facts that a.) I consider myself a Tea Party supporter, b.) I consider myself a small "l" libertarian, c.) I find nothing inherently "immoral" about either position, and d.) I find his description of "this new kind of libertarianism" to be misleading at best, and demagoguery, I'm wondering what about "Tea Party libertarianism" you find to be "immoral". IMHO, such descriptions as yours and his significantly miss the point(s) about both the Tea Party and libertarianism, but I'm curious to read your response.
Byron, old friend. I hope all is well with you.
I guess I missed all the hubbub about Huckabee's pardon of Maurice Clemmons. How could he have known this guy would turn out to be a cop-killer years later?
Anyway, the "immoral" part is when economic policy shows itself to be "heartless, callous, and soulless" when it says "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 health care, so be it."
In a time when everyone is talking austerity, all I hear from the Right is "cut spending, cut spending," and "keep the tax cuts for the wealthy." But the stuff they want to cut is primarily programs that serve the poor while the tax plan is to protect George Bush’s tax cuts for the rich, which if allowed to expire would add an additional $1 trillion over the next ten years.
Well, I'm SURE you aren't hearing "keep the tax cuts for the wealthy" from "the Right"; rather, you're hearing it from the Left putting it in the mouths of the Right. But enough for now; I've got to go to bed. I'll come back atcha tamale. Later!
I agree on the point about "how could Huck have known"; my beef was with the very evasive way he went about dealing with it. Very unpresidential, quite frankly.
Now, this nonsense about "tax cuts for the rich" makes for nice Democrat party demagoguery, but here's an analysis by CNN, dated 2009:
The top fifth of households made 56% of pre-tax income in 2006 but paid 86% of all individual income tax revenue collected, according to the most recent data available from the Congressional Budget Office...
The Tax Policy Center estimates that for 2009, 43% of tax units (most of which are lower income households that may or may not file a return) will have no income tax liability or will have a negative income tax liability, meaning the government will actually pay them.
A tax cut cannot be given to someone who doesn't pay taxes, and the poor do not pay income taxes, given the tax credits available to them.
Further, in 2004, to go back a tad further, the top half of income earners paid a tad less than 97% of all taxes. How can we not say that we already have a progressive tax structure in place? Of course we do.
One quick final point: one, your response assumes, a la progressive/Democrat-types, that the best, or the main, or the most effective, means of "helping the poor" is via the government. I have a fundamental disagreement with that premise, as do, I believe, millions of Americans. It's not a question of whether or not to help the poor; that's a simplistic way to look at it. The questions involve the appropriateness and the effectiveness of governmental "help" of the poor. I dare to imagine a world in which people keep a lot more of their own money, such that they are free to discriminate in who they help with it (the government can't be very discriminating, and the fact of the matter is that there are many people receiving public help who shouldn't be).
And I end by proposing a hypothetical: Bill Gates is the richest man in America (I think). Would Bill Gates help poor people more by having his money taxed at a confiscatory rate (say, 85%)--even if all of it went directly to some government help-the-poor program, or does Bill Gates help poor people more simply by being Bill Gates, even if he never gave a dime to any charity (and, of course, he does). I think that the answer to that question says a lot about our understanding of basic economics, because I think the answer is clear, and very easy.
Oh, and one more thing, whilst I'm at it: I just finished reading Richard Stearns excellent The Hole in our Gospel, which if you haven't read, I highly recommend. I agreed with almost everything Stearns said, save one, and it was when he was quoting Jimmy Carter (there's a shock, right?). You may agree with me, by the way, and disagree with Carter (you should!), but it's a related issue, and hence I bring it up. Stearns quoted Carter to the effect that the number one economic problem in America today was the growing income disparity between rich and poor. I hear that from Campolo-types, and it drives me absolutely nuts, particularly when it's couched in some sort of pseudo-spiritual jargon ("God's heart must break that there's such a growing income gap between rich and poor", or some such tripe). Please. Please. That is a demonstrably silly notion.
So silly, as I said, that I trust you see through it?
I agree on the point about "how could Huck have known"; my beef was with the very evasive way he went about dealing with it. Very unpresidential, quite frankly.
Now, this nonsense about "tax cuts for the rich" makes for nice Democrat party demagoguery, but here's an analysis by CNN, dated 2009:
The top fifth of households made 56% of pre-tax income in 2006 but paid 86% of all individual income tax revenue collected, according to the most recent data available from the Congressional Budget Office...
The Tax Policy Center estimates that for 2009, 43% of tax units (most of which are lower income households that may or may not file a return) will have no income tax liability or will have a negative income tax liability, meaning the government will actually pay them.
A tax cut cannot be given to someone who doesn't pay taxes, and the poor do not pay income taxes, given the tax credits available to them.
Further, in 2004, to go back a tad further, the top half of income earners paid a tad less than 97% of all taxes. How can we not say that we already have a progressive tax structure in place? Of course we do.
One quick final point: one, your response assumes, a la progressive/Democrat-types, that the best, or the main, or the most effective, means of "helping the poor" is via the government. I have a fundamental disagreement with that premise, as do, I believe, millions of Americans. It's not a question of whether or not to help the poor; that's a simplistic way to look at it. The questions involve the appropriateness and the effectiveness of governmental "help" of the poor. I dare to imagine a world in which people keep a lot more of their own money, such that they are free to discriminate in who they help with it (the government can't be very discriminating, and the fact of the matter is that there are many people receiving public help who shouldn't be).
And I end by proposing a hypothetical: Bill Gates is the richest man in America (I think). Would Bill Gates help poor people more by having his money taxed at a confiscatory rate (say, 85%)--even if all of it went directly to some government help-the-poor program, or does Bill Gates help poor people more simply by being Bill Gates, even if he never gave a dime to any charity (and, of course, he does). I think that the answer to that question says a lot about our understanding of basic economics, because I think the answer is clear, and very easy.
For some reason, Blogger posted my comments in reverse order. Actually, it didn't post my first comment at all; thankfully, I'd copied it so I wouldn't lose it if it got lost in cyberspace. Weird.
1. No, I don't "see through it." I side with Sider on that one. Read "Just Generosity." 'nuff said.
2. As you know (and if you don't check out my present debate with Jack on my previous post), I favor non-governmental solutions to societal issues.
That being said, I believe that there are some issues that our society must deal with corporately, i.e., via government. I thank God that because of government, I can trust the food I eat, that my kids are not being used as cheap labor, that the water I drink is safe, that corporations have to adhere to regulations for the common good.
3. With all the talk of deficits and balanced budgets, is the only solution REALLY spending cuts? We do not need to address the revenue side of the equation? And the rich really can't afford to pay Clinton-era taxes? Really?
OK, I like hypotheticals, so let me set one up, and see how you handle it, because to me, it demonstrates the silliness of the "income gap" argument. A man invents a widget that will greatly improve the lives of countless millions of people, particularly impacting the world's poor. Further, to produce the widget, many millions of people will need to be employed, and overnight, the unemployment rate in our country drops a couple of percentage points. Poor people are employed by the hundreds of thousands, and their standards of living are increased greatly, in most cases, doubling. Question: wouldn't this be welcome news?
Oh, there's one complication in my hypothetical. The twenty richest Americans are financing this deal, and they will add a couple billion dollars each to their own coffers, thereby increasing the "gap" between the richest of the rich and the poorest of the poor, even though the poor will be dramatically impacted for the better.
Question: is this whole thing a good thing, or a bad thing?
If it's a good thing, then enough with the "income gap" talk. If it's a bad thing, well, I have no words...
4. I believe it is biblical for the Rich to carry a larger burden than the poor. I'm not impressed with statistics that tell me how much they pay. Really not impressed. Government is not supposed to be making the rich richer. Lots in the Bible about that. Certainly, if they are being over-burdened, that is unjust. But they are not. No they are not.
5. And, the Bill Gates proposal: Most rich people give for tax write-offs, not out of the goodness of their hearts. The average CHRISTIAN tithes 2.3% or something like that!! Do we really believe that if people are allowed to keep more of their money then they would create the safety nets that our government has done? Pie in the sky.
OK, Bob, I'm actually going to concede a point or two to you. It does seem to me that we need to look at both decreasing spending--greatly--and finding ways to increase revenue. Further, I'm not terribly certain that it'd be an awful thing for some taxes to increase (wow, can't believe I said that), if, and only if, those increases were targeted and temporary, and more importantly, if politicians got serious about reining in our gargantuan, anti-Constitutional government. Fact is that we do have a huge mess, mostly of the government's making, I might add (yeah, I know, I know, we elected the Bozos), and we'd better first get serious, and then get creative, in trying to figure out how to fix it. Problem is that I have exactly no faith in the clowns that got us into this mess mustering up the political will to get us out, and I have no faith in the American people being willing to let go of some of their pet spending items in order to let 'em fix it.
I am glad you favor, to a great extent, non-government solutions; I don't take you at all for some full-bore liberal who thinks government solves everything. I, on the other hand, have faith in government to solve almost nothing, and I don't share your belief that there are some things that only government can handle, though I would concede a couple things: one, we can't go from where we are to where I think things ought to be, in that regard, absent a number of intermediate steps, and two, it strikes me that in the event there truly are areas where the hand of government needs to intervene (and I don't agree with all of your examples, but for the sake of argument...), then the more local we can get, the better. Abolish the Department of Education, so that our kids can have better educations, for instance...
To point 4, I too believe that it's biblical for the rich to bear a larger share. 20% of 1 billion dollars is $200 million. 20% of $50,000 is $10,000. Ergo, the rich bear a much greater burden. Can you give me chapter and verse that suggests that the rich ought to pay a higher percentage of their income? And I say that, not necessarily disagreeing that to a point, it's not a bad thing (and certainly believing that there ought to be a level below which individuals ought not pay taxes).
To point 5, I'm not ready to pass judgment on why people give, Bob. As for Christians giving 2.3%, it is admittedly a sad statistic, to be sure. And as much as I'd like to believe that freeing up a lot more money would translate into more generosity, I think it would, but not to a huge degree. But what I'd propose would be for government, rather than confiscating money for welfare purposes, provide significant incentives for people to voluntarily give to help the poor. I don't think we can say what would really happen were the government to, say, phase out welfare (and a key would be "phase out", not abruptly stop it), but it strikes me that a number of things might be likely, some of which would be great:
1. The lazy--of which there are plenty--would find themselves in a sink-or-swim situation in which they'd realize that if they didn't work, they wouldn't eat. Hmmm...something Biblical about that.
2. Much as people rally together after hurricanes and tornadoes, if there were real need, and particularly if the government provided incentives, many people's basic needs would be met. We've used our home, for instance, to help out "down on their luck" people. People would do that.
3. There would be a greater reason for family bonds to be stronger. Government now serves, in all too many cases, in the roles family used to serve. This is a tragedy.
And here's another can of worms, while we're at it: government supposedly helps the poor by raising minimum wage. Am I the only one (well, I'm certain I'm not) who sees a link between this lingering high unemployment and the fact that it now costs a good bit more to employ people than it did a couple years ago? The artificial inflation of the cost of goods and services ripples through the economy and has a dilatory effect on employment, particularly on the young and unskilled. I just perused a piece that said that, coupled with a decrease in the "Teen Participation Rate", our record-high levels of teen unemployment (over 25%, peaking awhile back at over 27%) makes the effective teen unemployment rate, compared to the start of this recession, about 45%. Who knows what percentage of teens simply don't try to get jobs, who otherwise would, because they know it'll be tough sledding. Black teen unemployment was as high as 50% last year, and this doesn't count the high percentage of black teens that simply aren't trying, again for above reasons. And you'll never, ever convince me that a key factor in all of this is the fact that, in the name of "helping the poor", government's decision to artificially raise the minimum wage has, ironically, harmed some of the very people it was designed to help.
Gosh, it's fun getting back to batting this stuff around. I've been on the sidelines too long, old friend and worthy foil of mine...
Any thought on my hypothetical?
yron,
You won’t find a debate with me that commercial enterprise like the one you dreamt up is a good thing. The Kuyperian view of Sphere Sovereignty (which I hold) places the primary means of flourishing in society in the hands of many different institutions and not the government, and among those institutions are private enterprises like the one you drew up here.
Private enterprise that is just is a very good thing. Corporations that seek to make profit through just means is good for society. But the reality of our human depravity says that greed is not always good, for with wealth come power, and this power often seeks to oppress people in order to gain more wealth or to maintain wealth. The issue for me is not income disparity per se, but systemic injustices that give the upper-hand to those that benefit from the unjust means to corporate profits (through their extensive network of lobbyists).
I fear for an America in which the oppressed poor have a decreased ability to have a voice in the political process.
If I am the CEO of your hypothetical Widget Manufacturing Corporation, my profits would be higher if I didn’t have to worry about workers’ safety or about polluting the local water supplies with our manufacturing byproducts or if I had to hold to a high standard for working conditions or if I could figure out ways that I don’t have to provide health care for my workers or if my widget, as popular as it is, could kill a percentage of people who use it.
The poor I employ are just relieved to get the job and are not in any position to deal with these issues. The poor in the neighborhood next to my plant have to drink the water but they cannot do anything about it because I have been successful in passing deregulation. By the time people catch on that my widget is dangerous at times, I’ve made my billions and sold the company off to some investment bankers.
The government is supposed to represent the people, not just the rich who have all the political capital.
Bob,
In your original post, which you deleted (but which came thru to my inbox), you had this sentence (which you deleted in the subsequent version):
The issue for me is not income disparity per se, but systemic injustices that give the upper-hand to those that benefit the most from unjust means to corporate profits (through their extensive network of lobbyists).
Why did you delete that? Because that sentence places us in substantive agreement on the issue. And that is the point: there are many on the left who say that the income disparity itself is the problem, to which I say, "poppycock" (or some other appropriate euphemism). I say, as long as the playing field is as level as it can possibly be made, and as long as the things you outline (at least most of 'em) are in place such that the poor aren't taken advantage of, then why should I, as a poor person, care one whit how much money anyone else makes, and particularly if my standard of living (as my scenario suggests) is being raised in the process?
Injustice toward the poor and income disparity are two different issues (though I readily grant the possibility that in many cases, they can be related). Let's work together to solve the first problem---the real problem, and then let's encourage people away from the sin of envy which, it seems to me, lies at the root of the second issue.
I didn't delete that statement, but placed it elsewhere to make my point clearer.
I probably think that the two issues (wealth disparity and unjust oppression of the poor) are more related than you do, but we definitely have mutual ground here.
But Byron,
My fear is that the libertarian unfettered free-market capitalism that is advocated so much in the Right-wing media would lead to the serious injustices that I talk about in my last comment.
If government is not there as the representative of the people, would not oppression in the ways I talk about happen?
Got it. Didn't read carefully enough. But that said, yeah, I think we're probably pretty close in our thinking then. How's this, by the way? "The problem is injustice toward the poor; often, it demonstrates itself in a growing income disparity." This suggests that income disparity can be (but isn't necessarily) a symptom, but not the problem. And that's my only point, really.
How'd I manage to take this from Huckabee to income disparity? Bob, you really should police your blog better than this, to keep creeps like me from hijacking your posts... :)
Wouldn't that depend on what you mean by "unfettered"? Businesses shouldn't be able to pollute indiscriminately. Libertarians don't believe in NO government; they believe government should be limited, and that it ought to provide justice for people (my freedom ends where your nose begins). I don't take "free market capitalism" to preclude reasonable laws that protect legitimate interests of the poor. My problem is that government has weaseled its way into so many unnecessary little nooks and crannies of business, and bureaucrats have (IMHO, unconstitutionally) written so many nanny state regulations that things are out of whack.
One other thing to consider is this: there are private-sector entities that can do SOME (granted, not all) of the functions that government currently provides/botches. Consumer Reports and other watchdog groups can have a great impact on certain things, particularly in this media-saturated age. Stuff that could be gotten away with 40 years ago can't be gotten away with nearly so easily today, not necessarily because of government, but because of consumer watchdog groups, etc. By the way, I have been a subscriber to Consumer Reports all my married life--but that's more the cheapskate in me than the bleedin' heart liberal...
By the way, I don't think I made my Bill Gates point clear, but let's just let that one slide...
Post a Comment