Seems I'm not the only one with a huge lack of confidence in Mike Huckabee's ability to make the "tough choices" required of a president.
Paul at Powerline, who has defended Huckabee on occasion in the past, says Huckabee's problem isn't that he's a moral man, but that he's "moralistic."
My main objection to Huckabee -- the reason why he's my fifth choice out of five -- is that I lack confidence in his ability to fight terrorism. It's not just that he lacks experience in this realm, though that's certainly the case. The real problem is that he's too moralistic (which is not the same thing as moral). My first clue came when he said during an early debate that we need to remain in Iraq because "we broke it." Not because we need to defeat al Qaeda; not because we need to limit Iranian influence or avoid a devastating defeat at the hands of terrorists; but because we injured this formerly peaceful state. Huckabee's exaltation of moralism (in this case dubious) over policy calculation was difficult to miss.
I consider morality very important, but I would have to agree with this distinction between being moral and being moralistic. Moralistic tends to carry the connotation of espousing moral ideals solely for the sake of sounding moral, rather than in pursuit of what is truly the moral and best course of action.
Huckabee seems very concerned with looking like a "nice guy." While being nice is a positive trait, was Jesus "nice" when he called certain people what the were: a den of snakes? Was Jesus being "nice" when he said some people will make it to heaven and some won't? Was Jesus "nice" when he kicked over the tables and drove some people out of the temple with a whip? Was his disciple Stephen "nice" when he called some leaders "stiff-necked people?"
Sometimes it can be tough--and take toughness--to do the moral thing. I don't think Mike Huckabee understands that.
0 comments:
Post a Comment