Huckabee: Carrying on the Republican Tradition?
Posted by
KTK
George W. Bush has demolished all Presidential records for stupidity, vapidity, contempt for facts, and sheer lack of intellectual engagement with the world. He has also scaled new heights in preening religious posturing, religious sectarianism, and scarily delusional religious triumphalism in an official capacity. It’s hard not to think those two phenomena are related (as they are overtly in such specific instances as Bush’s denial of global warming, embrace of creationism, opposition to stem cell research and abortion, and the like).
Mike Huckabee is giving Bush a run for the title on the religious front, claiming his religion “defines” both him himself and his approach to his official duties, touting his status as an ordained minister as part of his qualifications for the Presidency, declaring categorically that no Muslim would be appointed to his Cabinet [that was Romney; my apologies], and boasting (falsely) in a Republican candidates’ debate that he holds a degree in theology. (He does not, but it’s striking that he would bring it up as part of his qualification for office.)
This is bad enough, but it’s also becoming apparent that Huckabee is somewhat strikingly . . . um . . . fact-challenged, too.
Huckabee is reasonably articulate, and seems far from meeting Bush’s standard for stupidity (so few do). Even so, he doesn’t really seem to be the brightest guy around, his vaunted “sense of humor” notwithstanding.* But what’s really noticeable is that he simply doesn’t seem to know what he’s talking about a lot of the time - and not only when people surprise him with pesky questions about little things like nuclear policy reports that have been in the news for days, as if a presidential candidate would be expected to know about such trivia, but even in the case of comments he himself makes on issues he brings up on his own initiative. He keeps saying things that are simply wrong, and demonstrating a remarkable ignorance of things he would either be expected to know about, or is required to know about to act as President.
It begins with his startling statement that he had not only not read, but had not even heard of, the NIE report that demolished the Bush administration’s drum-beating for an attack on Iran - after the report had been top of the news for two days. He compounded that by claiming that he hadn’t had time to read it because it had been released only four hours before he was asked about it (it had been released the previous day), and that it wasn’t fair to criticize him because George Bush had “had it for four years” and still didn’t know what was in it (Bush had had it for one year, and Huckabee hardly helps himself by adopting George Bush as his standard of ignorance). All of this was less than a week before a major Republican TV debate - Huckabee simply wasn’t paying attention to the leading issues of the day, even when he must have known he’d be asked about them.
But many of his many gaffes have that same quality of bewilderment. He has repeatedly misstated the sequence of events regarding his own active participation in the Dumond pardon. He appeared to be genuinely uninformed when he questioned whether Mormons regarded Jesus and Satan as brothers - then backed off when criticized for this implication, although in fact there are Mormon Church publications that make exactly that statement. (It’s not just that he was courting religious bigotry, but that he really didn’t seem to know the score on an issue he himself brought up. He stumbles both coming and going, first speaking from ignorance and then claiming ignorance as his excuse when in fact he was right. And this from someone who constantly broadcasts his religious expertise as a qualification.) He defended his anti-choice position by invoking the signers of the Declaration of Independence, “those 56 brave people, most of whom, by the way, were clergymen”; at most five had ever been preachers, only one was an active minister at the time of the Convention. (Again he calls attention to his own status as a Baptist minister, and again - on his own ground of greatest expertise - he screws it up.) He claimed in another debate to have had the “most impressive” record on education among the candidates, although his state ranks almost at the bottom of the country by most measures, and Romney’s state of Massachussetts is #1. He also claimed in a televised debate that “I’m stronger [regarding terrorism] than most people because I truly understand the nature of the war that we are in with Islamofascism. . . . It’s a theocratic war. And I don’t know if anybody fully understands that. I’m the only guy on that stage with a theology degree”; he had previously made the same claim in numerous campaign appearances. But he doesn’t have a theology degree - an admission his campaign was forced to make after Huckabee himself had raised the issue as proof of his own competence. (Bizarrely, Joe Carter, his oppo research director, tried to spin this as a positive, offering it as the reason for Huckabee’s ignorance about Mormon beliefs. But it was Huckabee’s own claim about the degree that prompted attention to the issue.)
And all this is just the dumb stuff that comes out of his mouth. It doesn’t even touch on the chosen ignorance that he has deliberately embraced, such as creationism and other anti-science positions dictated by religious beliefs, or his simply loony policy positions, apparently resulting from his failure to do even the most basic number-crunching, such as his policy that all 12 million illegal aliens in the US would leave the country within 120 days and then apply for readmission from across the border, or his scheme to abolish the income tax and institute a sales tax with monthly rebate checks to every single family in the country based upon nothing but their number of children (a policy he reportedly adopted after reading one nutso book and not talking to anyone else about it).
In short, Huckabee, who uniformly gets high marks for being personable and articulate, sounds like an idiot when you ask him to talk about anything in a serious way, or to make factual statements about important matters that are in fact true and relevant. He even sounds confused about the factual grounding for his own beliefs. (If it somehow matters to his abortion position that “most” of the signers of the Declaration of Independence were clergy, shouldn’t he change his position on being informed that over 98% of them were in fact not?) He can’t even make a clear and correct factual statement about himself. And invariably these false statements trend in one of two directions: to inflate Huckabee’s own credentials, or to put a falsely positive light on some aspect of his relgious beliefs. In other circles, these would be called . . . lies . . . but in Huckabee’s case it’s possible to believe he really is that confused.
Huckabee is often compared to Ronald Reagan as a “communicator” (meaning they both speak in folksy platitudes and plainly don’t know shit about anything). The comparison is worrisomely close. Reagan was mendacious, mean, and stupid, and had a habit of saying ridiculous nonsense to his own benefit (welfare queens, Soviet treaty-breaking, and his own disgusting, and repeated, claim to have personally liberated Nazi concentration camps, among many, many other examples). His staff had a standard practice of issuing printed lists of “corrections” to the false statements he made after any press conference. The thing about Reagan was, he was so dim that it seemed clear at least some of his confusion was real. Much of the time he was obviously lying, and was never called on it, but much of the time he just didn’t know what he was saying, and people seemed to think it was funny. Huckabee seems to be much in the same mold: he doesn’t, or maybe can’t, tell the truth, in part because he has a decidedly mendacious streak but in part because he simply doesn’t know what he’s talking about most of the time and doesn’t seem to know that he doesn’t know. As with Reagan, Huckabee seems perfectly content to make things up, say whatever comes into his head, and act shocked when anyone calls him to account on it.
The longstanding Republican addiction to ignorance is wearing thin. Surely, after Reagan, Bush/Quayle, and George W. Bush, three generations of imbeciles is enough.
* Huckabee’s alleged sense of humor: “I may not be the expert that some people are on foreign policy, but I did stay in a Holiday Inn Express last night.” So far, no one to my knowledge has managed to explain what that even means.
UPDATE: I left out the one that sparked this post! Huckabee, criticized for his lack of depth on foreign policy (see NIE, above), just published an article in the highly serious policy journal Foreign Affairs. Seeking to burnish his credentials as a profound global thinker, he worked in a quote from the classic Chinese military strategy primer, The Art of War by Sun Tzu: “Keep your friends close, and your enemies closer.” The quote is actually from Michael Corleone in The Godfather II. Sheesh.
UPDATE: Fixed typos, spelling-os, and one embarrassing counterfactual Huckabee-o.
I’m sure a lot of people will be bothered by the semantic difference between a degree in religion and a degree in theology. This will probablly sink his chances for the nomination.
Comment 12/16/2007
fwiw:
friends/enemies quote is widely attributed to Tzu. google it and see
that you have been unable to ascertain meaning of holiday inn reference is a reflection of your sleuthing ability and not huckabee’s sense of humor.
Comment 12/16/2007
friends/enemies quote is widely attributed to Tzu. google it and see
Yes it is. And it’s wrong. Foreign Affairs is a serious professional journal, and Huckabee is running for the Presidency of the United States. You’re supposed to get things like that right if you want to be taken seriously in those circles.
Huckabee is constantly making schoolboy-level gaffes and then offering some lame excuse. It doesn’t matter if the average nonspecialist would have made the same mistake - he’s not supposed to be operating at that level.
Or, as Sun Tzu would have said: “D’Oh!”
Comment 12/17/2007
because expertise in 6th century BC Chinese literature has long been recognized as a prerequisite to holding political office in the US.
Comment 12/17/2007
Campaign notebook: Paul foots bill for Huckabee critics’ trips…
Two former Republican legislators from Mike Huckabee ’s home state are in Iowa this week criticizing…
Trackback 12/17/2007
KTK:
“I may not be the expert that some people are on foreign policy, but I did stay in a Holiday Inn Express last night.” So far, no one to my knowledge has managed to explain what that even means.
It’s actually pretty funny (and remarkably ironic) if you’ve seen any of the commercials for Holiday Inn Express (examples here and here). They all feature people doing jobs (doctor, skydiving instructor, etc.) for which serious qualifications are needed, and when someone says “I sure am glad you are X” (medical doctor, certified skydiving instructor, etc.), the person says “Oh, I’m not. But I did stay at a Holiday Inn Express last night.” Cut to the chain’s “Stay Smart” slogan. It’s a vapid marketing idea — staying at Holiday Inn Express shows above-average intelligence — but it’s cute in its own context. What’s so funny (and ironic) about Huckabee’s use of it, however, is that it’s a de facto admission that he’s not really qualified to do this job. I’m willing to chalk that up as self-effacing humor, however, and it shows a lot more willingness to not take oneself too seriously than most GOP candidates ever would.
Ted:
Hell, being able to pronounce “nuclear” obviously isn’t a prerequisite, either. That doesn’t mean that this is a good thing, however.
Seriously, though, I agree with you that the Tzu gaffe is relatively minor, and if it were being brought up in a vacuum, I’d say it’s blown out of proportion. But there’s a larger pattern of behavior here that’s still quite troubling, as KTK points out. I’d agree with you that the Tzu gaffe isn’t the best example, but that fact doesn’t invalidate the rest of the complaints.
Comment 12/17/2007
Agreed. He has done and said some stupid stuff. At this point I’m thinking McCain would be the least bad choice if we were so unfortunate as to have a Republican win.
(Note that KTK disputes your previous characterization of Reagan as “not stupid”
)
Comment 12/17/2007
Poor wording on my part. The Reagan campaign wasn’t stupid.
Reagan the guy very well may have been.
Comment 12/17/2007
“Reagan the guy very well may have been.”
That doesn’t speak well for the intelligence of the liberals he beat over and over.
Comment 12/17/2007
“That doesn’t speak well for the intelligence of the liberals he beat over and over.”
No, it doesn’t speak well of the intelligence of the people who voted for him.
Comment 12/17/2007
In the spirit of democracy, Fred, you can choose my response.
A) nor does it speak highly of those who voted for him
B) Because when it comes to presidential elections, they count the votes just for fun, only to pronounce the winner based on the candidates’ IQ scores.
Be sure you used a #2 pencil.
Comment 12/17/2007
Oh, shit, how ’bout that…
Comment 12/17/2007
“No, it doesn’t speak well of the intelligence of the people who voted for him.”
My bad. I keep forgetting that you highclass liberals are a cut above the rest of the American people. Of course, the election of Clinton and the election of the 2006 Congress was a fluke.
Comment 12/17/2007
Umm, before anyone can believe that Bush really is that bad, wouldn’t they have to believe that Carter was better?
What kind of ignorant moron would say Carter was better than Bush!!
Comment 12/17/2007
Wow:
Number of Wars Started
Carter: 0
Bush: 2
Next question?
(Yeah, you can dicker over which Bush started the war with Iraq. But you’d have to claim that we’re still at war with Korea, which seems at best pedantic.)
Comment 12/18/2007
“Of course, the election of Clinton and the election of the 2006 Congress was a fluke.”
Seems to me that some people have finally used their heads…
Comment 12/18/2007
Morris,
I’m only speaking for myself, but your comments, even if they were meaningful, are completely impotent when directed at me. I don’t consider myself a “liberal,” I don’t see a particularly profound difference between either of the parties, and I’ve stated many times that George W. Bush is infinitely more similar to (insert President beloved by “liberals”) than he is different.
Comment 12/18/2007
The other evidence of Huckabee’s sense of humor is here.
Comment 12/19/2007
I must repeat that I take a huge issue with the idea that the two parties are more similar than different. This is true from only the most superficial viewpoint. If you care about issues like abortion, the environment, health care, civil liberties, education, church & state, the Supreme Court, foreign policy, the budget, gun rights/gun control, etc., there are profound differences between the two parties. Maybe you don’t give two squirts of piss about any of those issues, but to most of us, at least some of those issues matter a whole lot, so those differences are important.
About the only meaningful thing that the two parties have in common is that they’re both corrupted by special interest money, even though the special interests lobbying the two parties are vastly different.
And guess what? The same would be true of Your Favorite Third Party the very moment they gained anything like meaningful power or influence. At which point they’d be just as much “the same” as everyone else.
Indeed part of the problem with third parties like, say, the Green Party, is that there’s less to distinguish them from the Democrats then there is that distinguishes the Democrats from the Republicans. As such, the best they could ever hope to do is play the spoiler role, splitting the progressive vote to the benefit of a conservative plurality (which the Greens did in 2000, for example, and which a conservative-leaning third party could hypothetically do to the benefit of a liberal plurality).
Unless we were to amend the constitution to do away with the “winner-takes-all” nature of our elections in favor of something like a parliamentary system (a move I don’t necessarily opposed, by the way), we’re always going to have a two-party system. The only thing that may ever change is which two parties get to be “the” two parties.
Comment 12/19/2007
“I don’t consider myself a “liberal,” ”
Of course not… LOL
Comment 12/20/2007
Your comments are as empty as the liberal agenda. Instead of Bush-bashing, how about an actual stance on an actual issue. That is the hallmark of the left: A bunch of talk leading to nothing.
Comment 6/8/2008