Column: Huckabee Clearly Explains Conservative Ideals In Speech At Brown
This story was written by Joshua Kaplan, Brown Daily Herald
Mike Huckabee's speech at Brown University last Thursday really resonated with me. He spoke powerfully of how much the Republican primary was about the process. He explained how time and again he was asked how much money he had raised and how much staff he had, but virtually never about his policies or the philosophy behind them. As a self-diagnosed political junkie, none of this was new to me.
It was later on in the talk when he got to his policies and philosophies that it fully occurred to me just how lacking the 2008 campaign was. In a considerably off-topic response to a question, he clearly and eloquently explained his view of the connection between limited government and conservative morals. To sum up his well-worded explanation: Conservative morality leads to a better-behaved society and therefore a diminished need for regulation.
I don't agree with his argument, but I understand it now. If I use his assumptions, I can get his conclusions. He gave a cohesive rationale for conservatism. He offered not just policies and opinions, but a why, a reason. That is exactly what this nearly two-year campaign season lacked.
During the Democratic primaries there was virtually no major philosophical or policy differences -- particularly between the big three: Clinton, Edwards and Obama. There was some squabbling over how "universal" health care should be and just how bad the Iraq war was, but it was almost all over minutiae. As Huckabee mentioned, on the Republican side it was not any more substantial.
To a certain degree, the lack of explanation for policy differences during a primary is understandable, as there is usually less difference. However, this should not have been a problem during the general election.
McCain and Obama spent their campaigns proposing policies, big and small, occasionally specific but often vague. They offered up statistics and platitudes. What the two candidates rarely, if ever, provided was a cohesive rationale for their policies. This is different from a rationale for their candidacies. Obama argued he would provide change, McCain contended he had the leadership and experience.
They virtually never spent time explaining their choices. The debates consisted of little more than each claiming that the other distorted his policy and then reiterating a rehearsed explanation of it. They did not defend their policies by explaining how they arrived at the policy, but instead offered a sort of proof-by-vigorous-assertion.
On the contrary, Huckabee stood before us and explained himself. He gave the rationale for his views on abortion by drawing an analogy to slavery. Abortion is morally wrong, and it must be stopped everywhere, he argued. Just because one lives in Rhode Island where slavery is illegal does not mean one should be content, because it still occurs in Virginia. If one truly believes slavery is wrong, then he will do everything possible to stop it everywhere.
Do I agree with him or his logic? No, but now I absolutely understand where he is coming from. Huckabee did not make it a guessing game as to how he arrived at his position. McCain and Obama offered their opinions on a variety of issues, but avoided every opportunity to explain their decisions. As Huckabee put it, Q&A does not stand for what you think it does -- for politicians it means Questions & Avoidance.
Candidates avoid these kinds of explanations for an understandable reason. If you explain your rationale to a crowd, it is possible they won't understand it, misunderstand it, or just flat out disagree with it.
But there is an advantage to making campaigns about these types of explanations. Without exception, every large campaign involves a deluge of negative ads. Digging up pat votes, quotations, articles and associations, rivals portray the dark, twisted thinking process of the other candidate. If the politician has already explained his decisions thoroughly and frequently, these tactics will be less effective.
If Huckabee runs again, he cannot count on my vote, but he can certainly count on my respect. Likely his speaking topics were a result of his audience. Because he was speaking before a few hundred Brown students and not the television audience of Fox News, he was much more candid. I can only hope if he ever campaigns again he will bring a little bit of what he said last Thursday onto the campaign trail with him. Perhaps it will cause other candidates to explain their views as well.