2009-10-15
What Would Huckabee Have To Re-Earn My Support
I got an e-mail from a long time reader, Huckabee supporter, and someone who I consider a good friend asking one very interesting question that I admittedly hadn't given enough thought to.
"... [W]hat would Mike Huckabee have to do in order for him to re-earn your support for a Presidential campaign in 2012?"
Well, since I have a knack for pretty efficiently burning bridges, the lure of political employment is no longer a temptation and my decision to support him again would only come after I was 100% certain that Huckabee was a good candidate. This would require two things.
First and foremost, an apology for going overseas to tell foreigners to not only ignore President Obama's foreign policy, but actually attacking the President of the United States of America in the process. I compared it to Nancy Pelosi's trip to Syria to meet with President Assad. Legally speaking, however, it was perhaps more similar to the Dixie Chicks going overseas to attack President Bush and his policies. The only reason I still like the Pelosi analogy is because Mike Huckabee isn't a country-western rock star, he is seen by the world as a candidate to replace the President of the United States. Nancy Pelosi is 3rd in line to assume the Presidency through the death. Mike Huckabee, if he gets his way, is 2nd in line to assume the Presidency through the Constitutional process. The truth may be somewhere in between, but when you're looking for middle ground between "Wrong" and "Wrong" - that middle ground is going to be "Wrong," too.
Second, if Mike Huckabee apologized to the American People, the President of the United States, and all of those individuals who have put in countless hours developing the nuances of our foreign policy, I would want Huckabee to prove to me that he can compete. During the Presidential Campaign, I excused Huckabee's inability to raise money because he was a third tier candidate and by the time he rose to first tier status, all the money had already been distributed between Romney, Giuliani, McCain, and Fred Thompson. I said that if Huckabee won the nomination, then the money would flow in. Obviously, Huckabee didn't win the nomination. But looking ahead towards the 2011/2012 campaign, Mike Huckabee is a first tier candidate. He's gallivanting around the country, he's a conservative political celebrity, he's on national television every weekend, he's spending an enormous amount of time in New York City (financial capital of the world)... and yet he STILL can't raise money. This doesn't make Huckabee a bad person, it only makes him an awful candidate. Especially against Barack Obama and his record breaking fundraising machine.
As a third condition, I would also want to know who some of Huckabee's foreign policy advisers are. In 2007 and 2008, I was openly critical of Huckabee for his lack of foreign policy knowledge. However, I still supported him because he seemed like he had the right attitude with what he called a "Humble Foreign Policy." However, it now appears that Huckabee didn't know what he was talking about. His proposed forced exile of the Palestinian Muslims and Christians into countries that don't want them resembles something closer to the Ottoman genocide of the Armenians or President Andrew Jackson's Indian Removal policy, which became known as the "Trail of Tears." Being as how this is the only foreign policy topic Huckabee has ever really developed his thoughts on, I think it was a bit dishonest to consider his foreign policy "humble." A more fitting word would be "irresponsible." If I were to get behind a Huckabee 2012 campaign, I would need to know that he's hired top notch consultants who would stop him from doing something stupid.
Although I absolutely love foreign policy and international politics, I'm willing to overlook foreign policy problems a candidate may bring to the table if he or she is capable of bringing the kind of responsible change we so desperately need domestically. That's why this third condition isn't so much a requirement. However, I would need some sort of assurance that Huckabee wasn't going to use the Bible to justify the pillaging and dispersion of the Christians and Muslims living in the occupied Palestinian territories.
The truth of the matter, however, is that Huckabee is that Huckabee - like most politicians - is never going to admit he exercised poor judgment, let alone apologize to his future opponent. He's also not very likely to raise the kind of money that would be necessary to win the primary, let alone execute an effective national campaign against the most well funded candidate in American History. And finally, the only reason Mike Huckabee would advocate such an immoral and dangerous Palestinian policy would be if he actually believed God wanted him to help exterminate those people from this part of the world. In other words, I don't see any hope for Huckabee changing or accepting political advice on that issue.
So is it likely that I'll support Huckabee in a 2012 bid for the Presidency? No.
But is it possible that he can earn my support again? Yes.
Archived Comments
colored opinions
It's the inconsistency with his foreign policy views during the primaries that is indeed worrying. We see similar mechanism inside political parties in Europe. It's apparently very tempting to go with the flow and think that conforming yourself to supposedly mainstream ideas within your party will help you climb the ranks. Political bloggers in Europe are still pretty rare, but I think it's a good way to be able to express your views indepently of party structures which tend to get nervous when they see creativity.
Kevin Tracy
It's not that they're inconsistent as much as they are non-existent. Most American politicians have an inconsistent foreign policy, as was made evident during the Russo-Georgian War last year and the support for Kosovo's independence before that. That's true of Democrats and Republicans as well as non-Americans.
Yes, I believe inconsistent foreign policies are dangerous. But having an inconsistent foreign policy is better than having no foreign policy and any foreign policy is one that would force a community of millions of innocent civilians to pack up and leave their homes in fulfillment of what the leader sees as Biblical prophecy or whatever the heck is inspiring this piss poor decision making.
