Contra Huckabee

It’s not that I hate Mike Huckabee so much as I hate the entire system of thought which he stands for. He is the candidate who best represents the broken political philosophy which has guided the current administration for the past 7 years. While his folksy blend of baptist pastor and good ol’ boy pleasantly reminds most rural Americans of their own quickly fading dreams, his anti-intellectualism and populist economic pandering make him a much better candidate for cable-news-talks-how-host than president.

I truly believe that the Republicans desperate hold on the evangelical vote is destroying the party. Structuring their platform around something so subjective as a religious relationship is destined to end only in failure as the fervent believers realize that they have less in common with their esteemed leader than they originally believed–then they stop drinking the kool-aide.

As political contests stray from intellectual ideological competition towards gladiatorial showmanship my faith in the future of the country circles the drain. Last year I went to a democratic rally because Barack Obama was scheduled to speak, and, while not completely unknown, the country had not yet been gripped by Obamamania. We commented on the local democratic candidates, skeptically placing bets on how many times the word “change” would be uttered that afternoon. We were verbally accosted by a couple of fevered democrats who seemed to be much less interested in policy positions than screaming their hearts out for anyone wearing a blue tie. All because we dared, politely, to discuss the pros and cons of a candidates policy positions at a rally.

Back in 2000 pundits gave George W. a lot of credit for being that candidate “a guy could have a beer with.” THAT IS A BAD REASON TO ELECT A PRESIDENT. The most important role the president plays is to act as a face for the American government. A single representative who faces foreign dignitaries while representing the interests of the United States. A representative who surveys the country for the ailments which congressmen, with their limited scope, fail to see.

Somewhere, something went wrong. At some point people started voting on a candidates amiability rather than their ability to perform the functions of the office. I’m not saying the president should be a standoffish intellectual (see: Gordon Brown), but rather, as a representative of a functioning American democracy, he should exude intelligence and a willingness to innovate.

When the president is meeting with the leaders of Pakistan, Iran, Israel, or Palestine to broker peace while representing the interests of America…Do you really want that man to be a bible-toting, guitar-playing,  evangelical?