I Am Appalled.

One thing that really eats me up with all the critics in the election (all of them, not just critics of Huckabee, they just triggered this post), is the misdirected refutation. I was listening to a talk radio show earlier called, “The American View“, and one of the things I noticed was that they seemed to think there was only one American view. I understand being and absolutist, but there’s a difference between there only being one way to heaven, and there only being one way to view America, or to view the Constitution, or to view a policy. But that’s a side note. What I really wanted to address is some of the things they said against Huckabee in this broadcast. They took clips of Huckabee’s interview with Tim Russert on Meet the Press and they critiqued it. I want to look at some of the things they said. Some of it absolutely appalled me. Not because they were critiquing a the candidate I’m supporting, but because of the way they did it, it was a beautiful example of miss-the-mark refutation, and a display of narrow mindedness. It was such a bad witness. 

If somebody says they are a Christian, and they believe in these certain values, don’t tell them they are not. These talk show hosts insinuated that Huckabee was not a Christian by saying, “If you are a Christian you understand these things. And he doesn’t get it.” You may not agree with his policies, and that’s fine. That’s your right. But just because you don’t think his ideas advance the values he’s claiming doesn’t mean that he’s lying when he says he values that. It just means you have different ideas about how to uphold that value. Just because he answers the question differently than you think you would have doesn’t mean that he’s not a Christian. The talk show hosts started talking about the scripture in which Jesus says, “if you don’t confess me before men”, and they actually tried to convince the audience that Huckabee “ran away” from professing Christ because he tried to take the attention off of the fact that he was a pastor and put it onto the fact that he was a governor for longer. He wasn’t running from Christ. He was redirecting the conversation back to the reason the conversation was even happening: the Presidency. He’s running for President of the United States, not pastor of the United States.

The communication on this talk show was horrible.  I don’t know about you, but I’m thinking it’s probably not a good witness to be comparing a professing Christian to a snake charmer because he is a smooth speaker and he can answer the question without offending people. 

Huckabee was talking about how he gets asked the God question a lot, and how he wishes that didn’t always come up, and the talk show hosts were trying to convince their audience that those are wonderful opportunities for Huckabee to “give a thirty minute sermon”. (Now I understand that the 30 minutes was sarcastic.) But the thought that every question about God is an opportunity for a sermon is just false. It’s a platform, not a pulpit. There’s a difference. A big one. I applaud Huckabee for NOT giving a sermon every time somebody asks a question about God. You cannot do that as President of the United States and expect to win respect of other countries’ leaders, especially ones that disagree with you. Again, he’s not running to be the pastor of the United States, he’s running to be the President of the United States. That being said, I think Huckabee should expect to be asked those questions, he is the only preacher up there, so naturally the questions will go to him. (That doesn’t make it right, but it’s reality.)

When asked about his quote from his book on homosexuality, and told that it could be perceived as him trying to push his faith on other people, Huckabee responded “It’s not a faith issue, it’s deeper than that.” Their response was, “What? It’s deeper than a spiritual issue? Nothing is deeper than a spiritual issue.” Two logical fallacies in that.

1.) Straw Man fallacy: (Twisting the argument and attacking the twisted argument) He said “faith” issue, not “spiritual” issue. There’s a difference. The twisted the his point and then attacked it. Faith doesn’t equal spiritual. I have faith in the Constitution. It is definitely not a spiritual issue. Your convictions don’t always translate into the spiritual realm. 

2.) Second logical fallacy: Equivocation. (Changing the meaning of a word in the middle of an argument) Huckabee was finding the most common ground with as many people as possible. His point was that it’s not wrong because his religion said so, it’s wrong because at a human level it’s violating a right, a natural order, etc. When Huckabee said “faith” he was referring to religion, not “values”, “God”, or “the substance of things not seen”.

I don’t have a problem with people who disagree with me, or a candidate I support. Go for it. You have that right. But don’t attack their character because you don’t like their policies. Not only is that a bad witness. It’s also unethical. Can you say “ad hominem”?

 

Oooh, look, another fallacy.

 

I’m not saying everything the hosts said was false, or wrong (though a large percentage of it was). But the way the presented it made me ashamed to be associated with them as a Christian. It’s not enough to be right. You have to be able to present it. Professionally. And making judgements about a person’s commitment to Christ because you disagree with their policies or the way they answered the question is not it. 

 

Defending Huckabee

First of all, I want to apologize for my lax in posting. I’ve been out of town running a conference. But I’m back now and should be able to keep up.  
I’ve noticed quite a few attacks on Huckabee’s character in the recent days and weeks. As I was researching them I came across a couple editorials in support of him that address some of those concerns. Definitely read the whole articles, but here are a few excerpts.

Huckabee Hatin’ Could Backfire on the GOP
by Greg Taylor, Real Clear Politics

Rush Limbaugh couldn’t be clearer – supporting former Governor Mike Huckabee’s presidential campaign is a really bad idea if you are a true Reagan Republican. In his opinion, Huckabee’s nomination would mark the end of the Republican Party as he knows it. And Limbaugh isn’t alone: Fellow talking head Sean Hannity and a whole host of conservative talk radio hosts love to pummel Huckabee and fellow candidate John McCain. The vitriol formerly reserved for Democrats Bill and Hillary Clinton, Al Gore and Howard Dean is now directed at Republicans like Huckabee and McCain.Why am I interested in the Huckabee campaign? Not because I’m a Republican (though I have voted for Republicans) or that I’m very conservative (although I am more conservative than liberal). It’s because I have something in common with Governor Huckabee- I am, and he was for many years, a vocational preacher. Whether the term is Pastor or Minister or Reverend, my guess is many others in the clergy are certainly intrigued by “the other man Hope.” And while an endorsement would be inappropriate from me or any other member of the clergy, the thought of a preacher in the White House is something I believe merits consideration.

And my guess is I’m not alone in the Evangelical community. Rush and crew should listen up: the Evangelical/Republican marriage could very well be on the rocks. This large and important block of voters who put George W. Bush in the White House twice could well be close to saying bye-bye to the party of Lincoln and Reagan, and conservative talk radio could be the reason why. And don’t let us kid ourselves, without W’s overwhelming support from Evangelicals, Al Gore would be President and the term “Lock Box” wouldn’t be a punch line. Why in the world would Evangelicals bolt? The answer is simple – Rush and crew have demonstrated the values Evangelicals hold dear don’t matter nearly as much as economic and foreign policy positions. No one in the Republican field is more committed to the causes that matter most to the Evangelical community than Huckabee – the former Baptist minister who is pro-life (and always has been), pro-traditional family and even open to amending the Constitution to define marriage as solely between one man and one woman. Huckabee believes in abstinence education and is very pro-states rights.

These positions connect with Evangelicals and frankly are more important to many in these communities than tax breaks for billionaires, border fences or amnesty accusations.  The three tenants of the Reagan revolution seem to be dissolving into just two pillars in the hearts and minds of Limbaugh, Hannity and the like. While trickle down economics and strong foreign policy are very important to the posse, strong social conservatism seems to be optional. Many in the world of conservative talk radio seem to care much more about economic and foreign policy issues, and much less about the issues that matter most to the Evangelical community. Read the rest… 

Huckabee Presents the Best Choice for Reagan Supporters 
by John Linder, Gwinnett Daily Post

I was first elected to the Georgia House of Representatives 34 years ago. I have watched this party change for a long time. Some changes have been better than others. Two years after that first election, I went to work on the Reagan campaign for the Republican presidential nomination. I was one of the leaders of that campaign in Georgia, and my friend, Paul Coverdell, led the establishment’s efforts to nominate President Ford. It was the typical establishment-versus-interloper campaign. Most of the friends I had made in the party were in the establishment. Most of them thought the nomination of Ronald Reagan was not only impractical, but would destroy our party. Reagan had just served two terms as the governor of California. His record was not all that conservative. He signed the biggest tax increase in the history of the state. He got the best he could get with a Democrat-dominated general assembly. He signed a bill legalizing abortion. But governors have different challenges than presidents. Frankly, most of the establishment couldn’t have cared less about abortion. They thought the discussion of it was, well, tacky. But we were, at the time, the party that Barry built, and the new foot soldiers cared about abortion. Their concern with Reagan was that he just wasn’t up to it. What did he know about foreign policy? How could he stand up to the Soviets? Did he understand detente? 

During that campaign, as in all campaigns, the establishment sat at the head table, and the rest of us milled around the small round tables below. Coverdell approached me, after Ford had won the first several primaries, and urged me to switch sides. Paul was convinced that Ford had the best chance of winning. Paul recited all of the reservations mentioned above and then said, “John, Reagan cannot win. No one will take him seriously.” That was also the consensus of the Republican writers and commentators. I said, “Paul, I think politics is all about what you believe. I know what Reagan believes. I have no idea what Ford believes. But you need to watch Reagan connect with the people. He is the best communicator I have ever seen. He is bringing new people into the party. And these are folks you won’t be meeting at the club for lunch. They carry a lunch bucket to work. Or a brown paper bag. Read the rest… 

 

That’s just a couple of them.