So I read Greg's comment regarding my Huckabee post and I wanted to push the issue just a bit further. I'm not saying that I "buy it." I'm simply saying that I have heard various conservatives make the argument that much of Huckabee's fiscal policy was motivated by his belief in what a Governor should do -- not what a President of a Federalist nation should do. Perhaps an example from "my world" would help illustrate.
As you know, pregnancy center workers hold a strong core belief that all life (regardless of geographic location) has an innate value that ought to be protected. Now, in most circumstances, that core value is strong enough that these workers believe that they ought to take every opportunity to speak out against the horror of abortion. This might include demonstrating in picket lines, participating in "life-chains," etc.... But, if you look around, you will find very few center employees actually do these kinds of things. Why? Because they also believe that their current vocation specifically targets women seeking to make an informed decision. If a woman considering abortion were to regularly see a center employee picketing, shouting on the news, etc..., the woman in question is not likely to have a favorable response to the worker when the time comes for counseling. So, consequently, many center employees actively choose to not participate in a manner that they normally would because such participation might (or might not) impact their ability to function in a different arena that deals with the same core value.
So again I ask: is it possible that Huckabee's values caused him to act as a Governor in a fashion that would be different if he were President? And like I said, I'm not sure I "but it," I've just heard a two very conservative, very politically astute friends make this argument.
Lastly, for whatever it is worth, I never would have considered picket lines etc... My own suspicion is that often people become caricatures of themselves as they participate in these things; and rather than contributing to the solution, they add to the already-shrill nature of society (thus limiting their ability to impact it in a positive way). No offense to any who have participated in such things because I do believe there are good people involved in such events. I just believe that the overall impact is ineffective and perhaps even detrimental.
As you know, pregnancy center workers hold a strong core belief that all life (regardless of geographic location) has an innate value that ought to be protected. Now, in most circumstances, that core value is strong enough that these workers believe that they ought to take every opportunity to speak out against the horror of abortion. This might include demonstrating in picket lines, participating in "life-chains," etc.... But, if you look around, you will find very few center employees actually do these kinds of things. Why? Because they also believe that their current vocation specifically targets women seeking to make an informed decision. If a woman considering abortion were to regularly see a center employee picketing, shouting on the news, etc..., the woman in question is not likely to have a favorable response to the worker when the time comes for counseling. So, consequently, many center employees actively choose to not participate in a manner that they normally would because such participation might (or might not) impact their ability to function in a different arena that deals with the same core value.
So again I ask: is it possible that Huckabee's values caused him to act as a Governor in a fashion that would be different if he were President? And like I said, I'm not sure I "but it," I've just heard a two very conservative, very politically astute friends make this argument.
Lastly, for whatever it is worth, I never would have considered picket lines etc... My own suspicion is that often people become caricatures of themselves as they participate in these things; and rather than contributing to the solution, they add to the already-shrill nature of society (thus limiting their ability to impact it in a positive way). No offense to any who have participated in such things because I do believe there are good people involved in such events. I just believe that the overall impact is ineffective and perhaps even detrimental.
posted by Just a Few Things about Scott ... | 9:40 AM
3 Comments:
You lost me on this one. I tried... but I'm still lost.
I have yet to meet a person who has been able to compartmentalize certain aspects of their lives to function independently from others (depending on their environment). People are people, they don't really change all that much, and behavior is largely driven by values. As such, I can't see Huckabee's behavior changing relative to the office position.
You're citing converations that you've had with others, but I'm really not seeing any content--so it's hard for me to respond. This argument just makes no sense to me, and it comes across as some kind of excuse--to be perfectly honest. "Let's forget what he's done in his past; we'll excuse it because governorial behavior will not translate to presidential behavior." Sorry--I can't believe that for a second. I can't see how an intellectually honest person can believe otherwise.
And while I appreciate the abortion analogy, I still don't see it as being directly relevant. I don't like abortion, but I'm not going to protest the abortion centers--largely because (as you state) it's not going to solve the problem. (And let's operationally define the problem NOT as a behavior, BUT as personal values.)
So to me--that's the core of this whole issues. Values are largely fixed within each of us. And these values drive our behavior. Sure we can conceal it for a while, maybe try and compartmentalize it... but in time--all things will be revealed.
If there are any articles that explain why governorial behavior won't translate to presidential behavior--I sure would like to hear what they have to say. Because as it stands right now, I don't think I've ever heard a more shallow or denial-based argument in quite some time.
I'm not sure exactly WHAT you don't get about the pro-life analogy. Person X has a core belief in value Y. Because of his/her involvement in situation Z, he/she expresses core value Y in a certain way, but NOT in another way.
I'm not saying it NECESSARILY translates to the Governor/President situation, but, as I said, others that I respect - others that would define themselves as more "conservative" than me -- believe this to be the case.
Let me see if I can dig up their argument and get back to you. 'Til then ...
I think I get what you're saying... but here is what I'm seeing.
Huck supported the notion of in-state tuitions for all illegals. Noble concept to educate all the illegals, sure. But ultimately at tax dollar expense. Cash coming from our pockets.
So for Huck to turn around and tell me that he's for something to the contrary--I just don't believe it. The Huck as a reputation of reaching into constituents pockets to fund his ideals. I don't see how that will change on the presidential level.
But I'd like to hear these arguments though... Just out of curiosity alone...
Post a Comment
<< Home