Pages

Sunday, January 06, 2008

Huckabee's Populism, Romney's Mormonism, Etc.

Below is an e-mail I recently sent concerning the current presidential campaign. Some people who are thinking through the issues might find it helpful, so I've decided to post it.

I've changed my mind from time to time regarding which candidate I want to support, partly because changing circumstances have resulted in shifts in the electability of the candidates. Thompson's electability, for example, has significantly declined. And since I have so many other things to do aside from following politics, and since there are so many plausible candidates in the Republican field for this election, I haven't followed the issues enough to reach a highly confident conclusion. Even people who follow politics as part of a full-time job have been undecided or have changed their mind about who to support among the Republicans.

I have some problems with Huckabee, like the ones you've mentioned, and there are a lot of other criticisms circulating. It would take a lot of time and effort to research all of them, and I haven't done much research on Huckabee. I'm largely relying on initial impressions and the research done by other sources I trust. Part of my difficulty with Huckabee at this point is what I don't know about him. I should learn more over time and adjust my opinion of him accordingly.

I'm more familiar with McCain, and he has a lifetime rating of more than 80% with the American Conservative Union. That's a significantly high rating, despite the importance of some of the issues McCain is wrong about. I think his electability is the best among the Republicans, even better than Giuliani's. (His temper is a significant potential problem, though. Especially if he's going up against Barrack Obama, he needs to watch his facial expressions and tone of voice, particularly in debates. He has a lot of potential to come across as Al Gore did in the 2000 debates and as Gore has come across in some of his speeches since then. I doubt that McCain would scream the way that Gore does at times or be as bad as Gore in his facial expressions, but he does have that sort of problem to a lesser degree.) McCain seems to be the best of the five major Republican candidates on issues like foreign policy and the military at a time when those issues are prominent. He also has a lot of good advertising, on television and elsewhere.

I'm currently leaning toward McCain, but would be open to Huckabee as I learn more about him and open to Thompson if he goes up in the polls. I would vote for any of the five major Republican candidates, but Romney and Giuliani are my least favorite. Thompson has been getting better, and he did well in the debate yesterday, but it seems that his electability has been diminished too much for him to recover.

Romney's Mormonism is a significant problem, even though I don't consider it always unacceptable to vote for a non-Christian. For example, in an election in which two Mormons were running against each other, one politically liberal and one conservative, I don't see a problem with voting for the politically conservative Mormon. A vote isn't equivalent to an assertion that I agree with every characteristic of the candidate. If the 2008 election is a matter of choosing between, on the one hand, a theologically and politically liberal Protestant and, on the other hand, a theologically moderate and politically conservative Mormon, I would consider the latter significantly better and would vote for him. We don't have a federal church. Americans don't have much interest in Mormonism, so a Romney presidency, though it would help further Mormonism somewhat, probably wouldn't do it much. And Romney probably would try to avoid making much of his Mormonism in public. Letting a Mormon in the White House would do some damage, and I hope it never happens. But the damage done by a theologically and politically liberal Protestant would also be significant.

It's difficult to weigh all of the factors involved, but my sense is that letting a Mormon be President for four or eight years probably is better than letting somebody like Clinton or Obama get elected. I view Romney's Mormonism as in some ways similar to Thomas Jefferson's deism. I'd prefer a Christian, and, contrary to today's prevailing political wisdom, electing somebody so distant from Christianity is a significant problem. But it's a problem we've had before, and it has to be weighed along with a lot of other issues. Thankfully, it looks as if Romney won't be the Republican nominee. But if he would be the nominee, the damage done by his Mormonism might not be much more significant than the damage done by Jefferson's deism. Romney's Mormonism is worse in some ways, but I think the two are comparable to an extent.

There's a lot at stake in the election. It's important that one of these five Republicans is elected. But some of the problems among those five, like Romney's Mormonism, are significant and are often underestimated. Republicans should vote for Romney if he gets the nomination, but he shouldn't get the nomination. And any future support for him should be accompanied by far more qualifications (criticisms of his errors) than we've seen so far.

26 comments:

  1. Do you agree with McCain's comment in NH that he would stay in Iraq for 100 years? Why is McCain the "best of the five major Republican candidates on issues like foreign policy..."?

    ReplyDelete
  2. I'm honestly curious, why not Ron Paul? I can see his 'electability' being a possibility, but isn't a pro-life pro-constitution candidate a good option?

    ReplyDelete
  3. larry said:

    "I'm honestly curious, why not Ron Paul? I can see his 'electability' being a possibility, but isn't a pro-life pro-constitution candidate a good option?"

    How does Ron Paul's personal opposition to abortion translate into public policy given his libertarianism? Does he support a national ban on abortion?

    ReplyDelete
  4. Steve,

    From what I've read/heard, Dr Paul does not support a Federal/National ban on abortion, but would leave this to the states to decide. I'm no constitutional scholar, but does this not seem reasonable?

    Is this enough reason for you not to support a candidate?

    ReplyDelete
  5. Publius wrote:

    "Do you agree with McCain's comment in NH that he would stay in Iraq for 100 years?"

    I don't know much about the larger context of his comments. Here's one of the accounts I've read:

    "Antiwar activist David Tiffany, 60, repeatedly challenged McCain about his 'open-ended commitment' to Iraq. As the men engaged in a tit-for-tat that lasted several minutes, McCain said he would keep troops in the divided country for 100 years if needed to provide stability." (http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-mccain5jan05,1,1673188.story?coll=la-headlines-nation&track=crosspromo)

    Here's what McCain supposedly said, from another source:

    "Make it a hundred....We've been in South Korea ... we've been in Japan for 60 years. We've been in South Korea 50 years or so. That would be fine with me. As long as Americans ...As long as Americans are not being injured or harmed or wounded or killed. That's fine with me, I hope that would be fine with you, if we maintain a presence in a very volatile part of the world where Al Queada is training and equipping and recruiting and motivating people every single day." (http://www.democracyarsenal.org/2008/01/mccain-on-iraq1.html)

    It seems that he was using the one hundred figure to make a point. I don't think he's committed to 100 years, and he qualified his comments by saying that we would stay if Americans aren't being harmed, if staying would weaken Al Queada, etc. And he refers to "a presence", which could be a much smaller number of troops than we have there now.

    You write:

    "Why is McCain the 'best of the five major Republican candidates on issues like foreign policy...'?"

    I wouldn't claim to be well informed on every issue relevant to foreign policy. But my impression of McCain comes from his experience, in the military and in government, from some of his supporters (for example, the Secretaries of State listed at http://www.johnmccain.com/supporters/), and from his recent leadership relevant to Iraq, for example.

    Keep in mind that I was including electability in my evaluation of McCain. Even if you don't think McCain is the best of the five Republicans on the issues, who has a better reputation on foreign policy? Giuliani was a mayor. Thompson was a Senator for less than ten years. Romney and Huckabee were governors. Do you think one of those other four is better on foreign policy and/or has a better reputation on foreign policy?

    ReplyDelete
  6. Larry wrote:

    "I'm honestly curious, why not Ron Paul? I can see his 'electability' being a possibility, but isn't a pro-life pro-constitution candidate a good option?"

    I would exclude Paul on the grounds of electability, but I also disagree with some of his comments on Iraq. I have a negative impression of his view of foreign policy in general from what I've heard from him in debates, in interviews, etc. I don't know much about Paul, though. He may be better than my initial impressions suggest to me, but his electability problems have prevented me from giving him much more attention.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Jason,

    I know McCain's comment was used to make a point and he didn't necessarily mean 100 years.

    Jason said, "Do you think one of those other four is better on foreign policy and/or has a better reputation on foreign policy?"

    Not one of the other four. After watching the ABC debate rerun tonight, I was quite disappointed in the supposedly 'electable' candidates.

    I actually think that Ron Paul has the best foreign policy and he has the support of people like Michael Scheuer, Chalmers Johnson, Gordon Prather, Philip Giraldi, and many others who are former CIA intelligence analysts.

    But if Dr. Paul doesn't win, then I won't be supporting any of the candidates.

    Regards,
    Publius

    ReplyDelete
  8. Steve,

    You said, "How does Ron Paul's personal opposition to abortion translate into public policy given his libertarianism? Does he support a national ban on abortion?"

    He authored and introduced a bill in the HR (109th Congress) to declare that life begins at conception. This would have overturned Roe v Wade. That seems to be much more than the other candidates have done. I think the bill was buried in committees and will never see the light of day again.

    Actually, it seems that Ron's *constitutional federalism* would prevent him from supporting a national ban on abortion.

    ReplyDelete
  9. "Letting the states decide" the legality of abortion is not a "pro-life" perspective - in fact, it is a pro-choice position b/c it grants that abortion may be an acceptable moral choice for some.

    In a similar way, should we leave discrimination based on race up to the individual states or is that, innately, an illicit "choice" that we should decide to legislate against?

    We legislate against "choices" that are morally/ethically unacceptable. The pro-life position argues that abortion is not a morally acceptable choice for anyone.

    For this reason I will not support Fred Thompson, who also holds an essentially pro-choice perspective, even though he believes he is pro-life:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FjeyLcj69lU

    ReplyDelete
  10. Anonymous said, ""Letting the states decide" the legality of abortion is not a "pro-life" perspective - in fact, it is a pro-choice position b/c it grants that abortion may be an acceptable moral choice for some."

    That doesn't follow at all.

    anon said, "In a similar way, should we leave discrimination based on race up to the individual states or is that, innately, an illicit "choice" that we should decide to legislate against?"

    If states are sovereign, then yes. But I think the free market can punish discrimination quite effectively in and of itself.

    anon said, "The pro-life position argues that abortion is not a morally acceptable choice for anyone."

    One can argue that it's not a 'morally acceptable choice for anyone' while still maintaining federalism as their political theory. Do you think we should start legislating every nation of the world who allows abortions?

    regards
    Publius

    ReplyDelete
  11. Publius wrote:

    "But if Dr. Paul doesn't win, then I won't be supporting any of the candidates."

    Why?

    ReplyDelete
  12. That's an astonishing admission that you would leave discrimination by race up to individual states!

    I'm curious just how extreme these libertarian Paul supporters really are:

    Would it be ok for some states to legalize murder?

    ReplyDelete
  13. Anonymous said, ""Letting the states decide" the legality of abortion is not a "pro-life" perspective - in fact, it is a pro-choice position b/c it grants that abortion may be an acceptable moral choice for some."

    That doesn't follow at all.
    *******

    Of course it does - this has nothing to do with whether an individual thinks abortion is good or bad.

    It has everything to do with whether abortion is viewed as a licit choice for some or an universally illict choice.

    "Leaving the issue up to the states" grants that it may in fact be a licit choice for some.

    An individual is not pro-life simply because he/she thinks abortion is bad. A pro-life position seeks to legislate against the legality of abortion (via a constitutional amendment granting protection to the unborn).

    ReplyDelete
  14. Jason,

    I said, "But if Dr. Paul doesn't win, then I won't be supporting any of the candidates."

    You asked, "Why?"

    I don't agree with their underlying political philosophies enough. Much too centristic and militaristic for me.

    Plus, as far as foreign policy, I think we've continually made the situation in the ME worse, from our overthrow of Mossadeq in Iran back in the 1950's in order to secure British oil production to our support of the regimes that are rife with human rights violations, such as Saudi Arabia, UAE, Kuwait, Egypt, et al.

    I think a principled nonvote or a vote for a third party candidate will shift the tide more than a vote for the status quo. An example of this was in the elections of the early 20th century. Both Republicans and Democrats were losing votes to the Socialist party and in order to remain 'relevant', both parties adopted the Socialist platform.

    anyway just a few thoughts.

    regards,
    Publius

    ReplyDelete
  15. publius,

    don't be fooled....

    The boys here at tblog don't like Ron Paul because he is against bombing the beejeezus out of mooslims ... heaven forbid ....

    ReplyDelete
  16. Can you quote us on that? No.

    Speaking for myself, I disagree with Paul's libertarianism because, taken to it's logical end, it would leave issues like abortion or gay marriage, etc. to the states, and it would isolate the US with respect to foreign policy. I will, at this time, waive discussing the latter to focus on the former.

    So, what we wind up with is a situation like the one that led up to the Civil War, where we had free and slave states; only in this instance we have abortion and nonabortion states and gay marriage and nonmarriage states. That strikes me as turning back the clock too far. This, IMO, exposes a weakness in the libertarian, and to a certain degree, the more radical "federalist" position. That is, when the Constitution was framed, these issues were not in their minds. There was no conception of gay marriage and no question about the impropriety of abortion. There was, however, an anti-slavery sentiment growing, but it took time to come to full flower. The Constitution did begin to try to address that situation, but it took the Civil War to actually sort it out. This country needs to make a decision; namely, is that the way we really want to go - again?

    That said, one fails to see how according states the right to decide for themselves is the only "constitutional" option. Are constitutional amendments not on the table with respect to libertarians like Paul? If Paul is really pro-life, then why is leaving abortion to the states the only option? Wouldn't it be better to advocate a constitutional amendment, or would Paul believe in free and slave states?

    No, it does not follow that leaving abortion to the states is a necessarily "prochoice" position, for it is merely based on the notion that the states, not the federal government are the proper authority to make that decision. What that decision is - prolife or prochoice- is another question. True, it is a foregone conclusion that some states, like those in New England, which are more liberal than, let's say AL, SC, or MS would choose a prochoice position, but this does not mean that the "states rights" position is necessarily a prochoice position. To say that is the case is to read the actual result into the foundation of the argument itself, for the act of moving it to the states simply pushes the question away from the federal level to the state level, and constitutional amendments can take place via state constitutions.

    ReplyDelete
  17. anon said, "That's an astonishing admission that you would leave discrimination by race up to individual states!"

    Yes, I'm sure it is for someone who sounds like they think DC should decide every decision you make. Nevertheless, if you want to read about the disastrous consequences of discrimination legislation, then I invite you to read Thomas Sowell's book on that issue.

    Using your logic, it follows that you think these abuses in other countries are 'morally acceptable'. Whenever you start legislating at the UN for every other sovereign country when it comes to human rights violations, et al, then I'll take you more seriously.

    I do find it interesting how some people would support a constitutional amendment for abortion, somehow pretending that it should be followed by our leaders, but then trample all over the Constitution when it comes to habeas corpus, the War Power Resolution, the 10th Amendment, the nonratification of the 14th Amendment, and so many other issues (not that this is necessarily the case with my anon friend).

    Regards
    Publius

    ReplyDelete
  18. I do find it interesting how some people would support a constitutional amendment for abortion, somehow pretending that it should be followed by our leaders, but then trample all over the Constitution when it comes to habeas corpus, the War Power Resolution, the 10th Amendment, the nonratification of the 14th Amendment, and so many other issues (not that this is necessarily the case with my anon friend).


    How does according the matter to the states solve this difficulty? All you've done is move the question back one step.

    Your thinking seems confused. On the one hand, you believe that we should push certain questions to the states, and you do so on "constitutional" grounds, so you've only pushed your lack of confidence at the federal level back one step and made it confidence at the state level. Your position falls prey to your own objection, for what is to stop the states from trampling on their own constitutions? To take an unrelated example, the state in which I live has been ordered, on the grounds of its own state constitution, to order the secondary education system in a particular manner but the authorities have taken something like a decade to get around to it; indeed they have not done it yet, and it isn't a matter of judicial activism. It's one of those things everybody knows is wrong but the state itself refuses to do anything even after court orders. So, overcoming this objection must be quite the conundrum for you.

    Using your logic, it follows that you think these abuses in other countries are 'morally acceptable'. Not necessarily. That depends on the grounds up which he is arguing.

    Whenever you start legislating at the UN for every other sovereign country when it comes to human rights violations, et al, then I'll take you more seriously.

    I disagree with Anonymous' statements, but here you're arguing just like him. It does not follow that if he believes the right to life is "universal" and therefore abortion is a universally illicit choice that his position should necessarily lead to dictating such a position to the UN. Rather, one would think that he understands the limitations of the US Constitution extend to the borders of this nation and no other.

    ReplyDelete
  19. Gene,

    I said, "I do find it interesting how some people would support a constitutional amendment for abortion, somehow pretending that it should be followed by our leaders, but then trample all over the Constitution when it comes to habeas corpus, the War Power Resolution, the 10th Amendment, the nonratification of the 14th Amendment, and so many other issues (not that this is necessarily the case with my anon friend)."


    Genembridges said, "How does according the matter to the states solve this difficulty? All you've done is move the question back one step.

    Your thinking seems confused. On the one hand, you believe that we should push certain questions to the states, and you do so on "constitutional" grounds, so you've only pushed your lack of confidence at the federal level back one step and made it confidence at the state level. Your position falls prey to your own objection, for what is to stop the states from trampling on their own constitutions? To take an unrelated example, the state in which I live has been ordered, on the grounds of its own state constitution, to order the secondary education system in a particular manner but the authorities have taken something like a decade to get around to it; indeed they have not done it yet, and it isn't a matter of judicial activism. It's one of those things everybody knows is wrong but the state itself refuses to do anything even after court orders. So, overcoming this objection must be quite the conundrum for you."

    Umm I'm not even sure what you are arguing here nor am I sure how it's relevant to my point. I am pointing out the *inconsistency* of validating the authority of the Constitution on an abortion amendment, but then invalidating it when it comes to practically everything else.

    I said, "Using your logic, it follows that you think these abuses in other countries are 'morally acceptable'."

    Gene said, "Not necessarily. That depends on the grounds up which he is arguing."

    I think anon made it quite clear. He said, ""Leaving the issue up to the states" grants that it may in fact be a licit choice for some.
    An individual is not pro-life simply because he/she thinks abortion is bad. A pro-life position seeks to legislate against the legality of abortion (via a constitutional amendment granting protection to the unborn)."

    So it follows that unless he's at the UN legislating (since the UN is technically a federation) against abortion, then he's not pro-life.


    Gene said, "I disagree with Anonymous' statements, but here you're arguing just like him. It does not follow that if he believes the right to life is "universal" and therefore abortion is a universally illicit choice that his position should necessarily lead to dictating such a position to the UN. Rather, one would think that he understands the limitations of the US Constitution extend to the borders of this nation and no other."

    Hmmm limitations of the Constitution...

    But your statement is irrelevant and misses the point of my counterargument, since the UN is a federation of sovereign nations, much like the Constitution was a federation of sovereign states, that dictates how prisoners of war are to be treated et al. The difference is that the US has become much more centralised, but that is not relevant when it comes to my overall point.

    ReplyDelete
  20. No, it does not follow that leaving abortion to the states is a necessarily "prochoice" position, for it is merely based on the notion that the states, not the federal government are the proper authority to make that decision. What that decision is - prolife or prochoice- is another question. True, it is a foregone conclusion that some states, like those in New England, which are more liberal than, let's say AL, SC, or MS would choose a prochoice position, but this does not mean that the "states rights" position is necessarily a prochoice position. To say that is the case is to read the actual result into the foundation of the argument itself, for the act of moving it to the states simply pushes the question away from the federal level to the state level, and constitutional amendments can take place via state constitutions.

    *****

    Gene, I think this argumentation is incorrect.

    One of the central tenets of the pro-life position is that abortion is no more of a licit "choice" than murder would be.

    To allow for even the *possibility* of any state of this Union to legalize this practice is to grant a central pemise of the pro-choice movement - that abortion really is a possibly licit choice for some.

    ReplyDelete
  21. Publius wrote:

    "I don't agree with their underlying political philosophies enough. Much too centristic and militaristic for me....I think a principled nonvote or a vote for a third party candidate will shift the tide more than a vote for the status quo. An example of this was in the elections of the early 20th century. Both Republicans and Democrats were losing votes to the Socialist party and in order to remain 'relevant', both parties adopted the Socialist platform."

    I don't know much about what happened in the early twentieth century in the context you're referring to, so I don't know how accurate your assessment is. But I do know that there have been many third parties since then that have failed to have much of an influence. I know that the Libertarian party has repeatedly done poorly in elections and has failed to bring about the sort of change you're referring to. I know that your preferred candidate in this election has done poorly in national polls, did poorly in Iowa, did poorly in Wyoming, and is doing poorly in New Hampshire. I haven't noticed any significant influence he's had on other candidates who are doing better. You refer, above, to "both Republicans and Democrats", but Ron Paul seems to have had little effect on Republicans and even less on Democrats. Voting occurs with other people. It's not something we do alone. Our society is far from accepting Ron Paul, but has repeatedly accepted a Ronald Reagan or a George Bush. As John Hawkins notes, "Ron Paul only pulled .47% of the vote when he ran at the top of the Libertarian ticket in 1988" (http://www.townhall.com/columnists/JohnHawkins/2007/06/15/the_conservative_case_against_ron_paul?page=2).

    If Ron Paul doesn't think that there's a significant difference between Republicans and Democrats, then why is he a Republican? And if there is a significant difference, then why should we think that the message sent by not voting for the Republican nominee is going to be more significant than the difference a Republican would make? Given the many factors involved in this election, why should we think that people will give much attention to Ron Paul's poor results in the primaries and polls when looking for an explanation for what happened?

    ReplyDelete
  22. LARRY SAID:

    “Steve, from what I've read/heard, Dr Paul does not support a Federal/National ban on abortion, but would leave this to the states to decide. I'm no constitutional scholar, but does this not seem reasonable? Is this enough reason for you not to support a candidate?”

    This is your problem. You gave, as one of two reasons to vote for Ron Paul, the fact that he is prolife.

    If, however, he opposes a national ban on abortion, then the cash-value of his prolife position amounts to a pretty liberal position—for abortion would remain readily available. If Roe v. Wade were overturned, then—absent a national ban on abortion—blue states would continue to legislate abortion on demand while red states would impose certain restrictions on abortion. And, if you didn’t like the restrictions, you could always drive across state lines to a blue state.

    As a practical matter, Ron Paul’s position on abortion is to the left of Mike Huckabee’s position. So, if you’re going to make the prolife credentials of a candidate a reason to vote for him, then Huckabee is a stronger prolife candidate than Ron Paul.

    I’d add that his libertarianism has the same effect on other social issues.

    I have other reasons for opposing Ron Paul. I oppose him on foreign policy and I oppose him on judicial oversight.

    ReplyDelete
  23. Jason,

    That's fine you disagree. I would disagree about Paul doing poorly in Iowa as well. He doubled Guiliani's vote and according to Wolf Blitzer and others, he did significantly well. Dr. Paul even spent less time in Iowa than Guiliani did, so I don't think it was that bad. The primary rules in Wyoming are quite different than elsewhere, so I wasn't expecting him to do well there. In NH, he has polled higher than he did in Iowa, and in Iowa he pulled 40% more of the votes than they thought he would.

    Will he win? Probably not, but that's fine because I don't choose my political candidates the way many people choose their football teams.

    Ron Paul doesn't think there's a significant difference between 'neoconservative' Republicans and Democrats. Granted that one seems to want a bit more warfare than welfare, I'd have to concur with his judgment. Excepting his first presidential run, he's always been a Republican and has stated that he wouldn't run as a third party due to a significant loss of air time and publicity. The media typically gives third parties about zero attention. Now you may think that my strategy is worthless, but at least statistically speaking, my vote is more significant when voting for a third party and would be more significant than voting for someone who actually has much support. I'm not sure what you mean by stating that 'voting is not something we do alone'.

    Whether he in particular has had a significant influence on other candidates or not doesn't matter. My point was that politicians typically 'morph' in order to win votes, and if they are still receiving votes and winning elections, they don't seem to have much of an impetus to change (aka flip flop). You may disagree, but that's fine.

    Regards
    Publius

    ReplyDelete
  24. "...in Iowa he pulled 40% more of the votes than they thought he would."

    This is a meaningless statistic in as much as it could mean that they were expecting 10 people to vote for him and 14 did.

    ReplyDelete
  25. Publius is hoping to revive the john birch society from his home in the hills of west virginia (and he's hoping to return to the situation where every state makes its own decision on discrimination by race - somewhat like the pre-civil war days).

    Paul is no social conservative - he is a simple libertarian (he's actually being supported by the legalized pimps of Nevada's prostitution industry), as are his followers.

    It's not surprising they won't support any Republican candidate other than Paul - they aren't committed to anything other than their strange libertarian principles.

    ReplyDelete
  26. It is time to throw the baby out with the bathwater. The only thing worse than a lying Republican is an honest Democrat. Just remember the words of our Lord; For every tree is known by his fruit.

    ReplyDelete