Mike Gallagher is a great guy. I bet we agree on most things. Today he wrote a column attacking Mike Huckabee that might as well have been written by the Huckabee campaign for all the good it will do.
As someone who hopes Huckabee will lose, I keep waiting for those opposed to him to stop uniting much of the party activist rank and file by assuming they are dolts and cannot follow an argument.
I believe that the “talking heads” may be making the basic mistake of assuming that their callers, writers, and bloggers represent the mass of the party.
In the little talk radio I have done, the first rule (from everyone) is that your callers/emailers do NOT represent the “heart of audience.” Such folk are “weird” (in a good way) by definition.
I think this is even more true of emailers or folk who comment or write political blogs. That of course includes me!
Reading the comment section on any blog is NOT a good way to see what most people think about anything. Since “new media” is so new, I am afraid that pundits may confuse “email commentators” (”I will never vote for Huck.”) with the old class of letter writers.
They are not the same class of folk. Letter writers mattered. They represented a larger group than themselves.
I believe email writers represent themselves . . . or Ron Paul would be President. The same people, however, who have learned to overlook Ron Paul writers (this years Howard Dean) as not representative have not learned to overlook anti-Huck writers as being the same type of OVER-represented voices in the new media.
In any case, bad arguments simply do not work with the folks (as much as 1/3 of the primary voters) who might back Huckabee.
There are three reasons for this.
First, it is morally wrong to intentionally use bad arguments. Being bad is never good for the long term.
Second, practically speaking they are a bad idea against Mike Huckabee in particular. Bad arguments are easy for a good communicator (Huckabee) to refute. This gives him an easy win.
Finally, bad arguments make it look like the pundit has a low view of the constituency by “reaching” for any argument.
Here is Gallagher’s bad argument for worrying about Mike:
Leno asked Gov. Huckabee about his past career as a Baptist minister and his transition to politics. Huckabee replied that he felt it was time to “get out of the stands” and go to work on behalf of the poor and disadvantaged.
So the ministry is a job “in the stands?” Preaching the gospel and saving souls is something one does from the sidelines? And to REALLY get in the game, one becomes a governmental public servant?
Perhaps the reason so many are worried about Mike Huckabee’s current popularity is because he’s actually a guy who believes that the solution to all of our woes is the government, not churches or charities. On Jay Leno’s show, he gave us a glimpse into who he truly is, a guy who leaves the ministry (“the stands”) and wants to be part of the government because he feels that government is the answer to everything.
That’s classic liberalism.
Time will tell whether Americans will figure that out or not.
But in the meantime, remember how unique Iowa really is.
One tiny state does not a president make.
Now imagine what would happen if Huckabee were asked about this Leno exchange.
He could say, “In terms of politics, the ministry is the ’side-line,’ as it should be in a culture where religion and politics are kept distinct. Some things just cannot be done appropriately by a pastor that can be done by a politician. One of those things is keeping government from hurting the important things!
In terms of all of human life, politics is less important than ministry, because it can do things that government cannot and should not do. But let’s not kid ourselves . . .
Important things do take place in government, so I decided, given the riches of people involved in the Southern Baptist Church, to become more involved in politics which in my state was dominated by folks like the Clintons.
I moved from the sidelines of politics to the fray. Given a whole human life that is a demotion, not a promotion . . . but some things happen in the fringes that matter! I decided my skills could best be used there and took the demotion in order to serve.”
The Gallagher use (misuse) of the Huckabee quote from Leno goes out of its way to be uncharitable. Gallagher presumes a wooden hermenutic (even fundamentalist!) and does not take into account the context (a talk show).
It just sets Mike Huckabee up to explain what people not given to cute political tricks understood all along: what he meant. Politics is a dirty game, but Huckabee decided he had better get into it to help the folks.
I oppose Huckabee for his tax policy, his views on the War, and his lack of a coherent plan to shrink government. I don’t think he is (yet) ready for prime-time and do not plan to vote for him.
His opponents, many of whom are people I admire, are often Huckabee’s best friends.
