I am going to stick my neck out and make a few statements that some will call brash, others whom I love will disagree and some well meaning people will call me foolish.
1. Many, if not most, of American Christians today are consumed with material interests; beit work, pleasure, financial prosperity, and others. They are so consumed that they cannot see the war raging in our culture. And, frankly, they don't care unless it affects their comfort or cash.
2. Most American Christians, and Americans in general, are ignorant of their history.
3. Most American Christians, and Americans in general, are ignorant of news. Liberals get their pablum from the 'mainstream press'. And, Conservatives get their pablum from the 'new media'. If they, in either camp, say it then it must be so.
Case in point: The current presidential primary. One candidate in particular will serve as an example. Mike Huckabee. This man has been lambasted from both sides. He has been decried as a liberal by the 'conservative new media'. He has been derided as a theocrat from the liberal media. He is neither. He is a man who acts upon moral principles that stem not from the Constitution, but from Scripture. As wonderful as our Constitution is it is not an ultimate authority in morality.
His actions as the governor of the State of Arkansas are excised from context and pointed to as proof that he is a liberal by the likes of Rush, Hannity, Savage, Town Hall, and more. Seen in the context of the politics of that state it can be shown that he did more to act on conservative principles than seems possible. Remember two things: Governing a state is different that governing a nation. And, Arkansas has the most lop-sided Democratically controlled government in the nation. They know this. Yet, they refuse to give context to his actions. I know that I have no voice compared to those I cited above. But, someone has to say it.
I do know that ultimately politics are not the answer to this nations ills. The answer is a church militant with the Gospel; willing to forgo this crazy notion that all men are good. All men are bad, and as such they must either be controlled by the spirit of God within them or the sword. The Founding Fathers of this nation knew this and said as much. They also said that only Christian men of good moral character were suitable for public office. How far we have strayed from that ideal.
So, I am going on record: I support Mike Huckabee. He is not perfect. No candidate is. Some say voting for him is a 'wasted vote'. (If everyone I heard say that they would vote for him, but it would be a 'wasted vote' because he is not electable WOULD vote for him he would carry this state.)
Posts
11 comments:
Hear, hear! I too am an ardent Huckabee supporter, and I regret that I have but one vote to cast for my nominee. But whatever happens, how comforting, in politics as in all of life, is it to know we serve a sovereign God?
AJ
<><
I regret that I have no vote!
I agree with your assesment of the current problems within our culture and our churches, but I am afraid that by election time I will be casting a vote against the democrat instead of for the republican.
Phillip
Well, I'm just gonna have to agree to disagree... I liked what I was reading till I got to the Huckabee part. Even the National Review lamblasts him for his social liberalism and waffling on illegal immigration issue. He embraces the social sospel. Arkansas nicknamed him Tax Hike Mike, and judging by his article in that globalist Foreign Affairs magazine, he doesn't know much about foreign policy to helm the free world.
I frankly am no longer enthusiastic about a candidate merely because they are a Christian. 9/10 who runs for elected office are nominally a Christian in the U.S. It doesn't mean anything anymore. And the ones that beat the issue up are usually prostituting their faith for political gain.
Ryan: I'm not excited about him just because he is a Christian. Actually, I don't get excited about politics anymore. Haven't for years. Every thing you mentioned as a reason to not vote for him is exactly what the established Republicans said about Reagan when he ran for President. I know that you are not old enough to remember that, but I am. Reagan, like Huckabee, was not a 'man from the party'. Ford was that man then. Ford was touted as the true conservative. He was more liberal, much more liberal. As I said, running a state is different in many ways than running a nation of states.
I'm from Arkansas. My family lives in Arkansas. Mike Huckabee did a splendid job. People do not take into account the fact that he was mandated by a legislature and Federal court system to raise the tax levels. He actually was able to lead the way in decreasing the amount of increase. His leadership:
*Took Arkansas from having the worst highway infrastructure to being in the top 20%
*Brought the education system out of the lowest three states into a respectable position
*Helped to create, pushed, and signed into law some of the best home school legislation in the states,
*Appointed a home school parent to the State Board of education,
*Cut the marginal tax rates 50%,
*Increase dramatically the amount of good paying jobs available in the state
See, you won't hear that on the radio.
Conservatism today, all too often, has come to mean an amoral, open market, consumeristic philosophy. That is not what it is. Conservatism, historically, is a moral based world view; not, a political system. Politics flow from world view. What most call conservatism today is just one more tool that power brokers use to remain in power. Dark Horse candidates are almost always blasted by the establishment. They are seen to be and said to be unpredictable, not trustworthy. What they are is a threat, like Reagan. A little threatening is a good thing sometimes. Keeps people in line. It is even better when followed up with a smack, if needed. Like electing a dark horse.
Conservatism today, all too often, has come to mean an amoral, open market, consumeristic philosophy. That is not what it is. Conservatism, historically, is a moral based world view; not, a political system. Politics flow from world view.
I'm a young man schooled on fireside readings of Russell Kirk, Robert Nisbet and Wilhelm Roepke. You're preaching to the choir. No one learns real conservatism by listening to talking head pundits Hannity, Limbaugh and Savage. Nonetheless, fiscal conservatism and limiting the size, influence and scope of government's influence in our day-to-day lives is one of the hallmarks of a conservative.
Huckabee liked to toot his own horn a little too much in the debates when asked about the Bible, and his views on it. He never finished seminary, and obviously forsaked ministry for politics.
Ron Paul is the real dark horse candidate.
Huckabee might be preferable to Guliani, McCain, and Romney granted, but his commitment to federalism is debatable.
Based on my understanding of Clinton's iron-handed rule of Arkansas during his gubernatorial years, I understand Arkansas has something in common with my native Virginia's constitution. The Clintons would tell the legislature what not to do before they did it to save themselves the trouble of it being vetoed. Thus their state executive has a lot of discretion in fiscal and budgetary matters, and influence over the legislature much more so than at the U.S. level, and an added veto measure. It's quite possible for an aggressive fiscal conservative governor to reign in on the legislature in many southern states, that being the case. So, I think what you said about the tax hikes is an excuse/rationalisation.
His actions as the governor of the State of Arkansas are excised from context and pointed to as proof that he is a liberal by the likes of Rush, Hannity, Savage, Town Hall, and more. Seen in the context of the politics of that state it can be shown that he did more to act on conservative principles than seems possible.
I like what most so called "conservatives" who into the fray into national politics become when they are "seen in the context" of working and playing in Washington, D.C. They really sell out then.
Ryan: With all due respect, you've obviously not studied the political machine of Arkansas. The only reason the Clintons were able to do dictate anything in that state is because they are Democrats. It is the most heavily Dem state in the nation. The apparatus in place is absolutely amazing. From the JP on up almost everything is controlled. That is why Jim Guy Tucker was almost able to pull of not resigning. It has been this way for years. It is neither an excuse, nor is it a rationalization.
Just so you know. I like Paul. I agree with almost everything he says. But, his stance on national defense will not hold water; especially since the water that allowed us to take that stance can be traversed in minutes by several enemy nations.
Ryan: With all due respect, you've obviously not studied the political machine of Arkansas. The only reason the Clintons were able to do dictate anything in that state is because they are Democrats. It is the most heavily Dem state in the nation. The apparatus in place is absolutely amazing. From the JP on up almost everything is controlled. That is why Jim Guy Tucker was almost able to pull of not resigning. It has been this way for years. It is neither an excuse, nor is it a rationalization.
Just so you know. I like Paul. I agree with almost everything he says. But, his stance on national defense will not hold water; especially since the water that allowed us to take that stance can be traversed in minutes by several enemy nations.
I'm not going to take your Ron Paul is weak on national defense seriously. It's the nation, and not the globe, that is our true national security interest after all.
This web site will be the final word: http://www.taxhikemike.org/
Ryan: I'm sure that if we sat down over a cup of coffee I could show you why I have the positions I do. And, you'd probably agree. It is too much to put in a blog comment.
Re: National Defense. You know me. I'm a staunch constitutionalist. I'm against empire building, overstretching the limits placed on our use of military power. But, Paul's view, and I studied it, is naieve. He is foolish when he states that if we would withdraw our international forces then we would not have the problem of Islamic terrorism. You, of all people, should see the naievte in that reasoning. They have not been attacking us for the last 25 years because we have troops overseas. It is religious.
Re: the website. I'm very well aware of that site and its slanted, out of context accusations.
I reckon we will just have to disagree. Drop me an email sometime.
Post a Comment