Posted by
Andrews on Monday, December 07, 2009 1:30:46 PM
I wrote my last post ("
TH Publishes Nonsense") immediately after Mr. Hunt's column was published, so I did not see the responses that have accumulated. Let me make a few comments on those responses, as they apply to my post as well.
First, Huckabee may not have paroled the man in question, but he definitely knew commuting the sentence would result in a parole application, so he intentionally acted so as to make parole possible. That was clearly his intent, so it is disingenuous to claim "he did not parole him". Of course not, and he didn't let him out of jail, the guard at the gate did, but he acted to make parole possible.
Second, I am in no way hypocritical. I an opposed to paroling of violent offenders by right or left. I admit I have never liked Huckabee, but that has no part in my criticism. He had a troubling tendency to parole anyone who claimed religious conversion, the left has an annoying tendency to give second chances on other grounds. I find both disturbing and dangerous. And I think criminals learned to exploit both, to the detriment of society at large.
Third, I am disturbed at how many on the right are crying about "such a long sentence being handed to a 16 year old." In cases where a left wing judge or governor handed out pardons on such grounds we called them soft and foolish, but since it is Huckabee he is right to do so? This sounds more like Huckabee boosters making excuses than a real, reasonable evaluation of the case.
Finally, there were several who blamed these accusations on "fake conservatives" who "care only about economics". I want to say they probably mean me, but the characterization is false. I am a very real conservative, who cares about many things, but thinks the government is not the right tool to deal with many matters. So, because I don't want government to enforce mroality, I am "unconcerned with morality?" Does that mean ebcause I don't want my doctor to fix my car, I am unconcerned with vehicle maintenance? Or maybe that I know what an auto mechanic does and what a doctor does? Recall, for you Christians who want government enforced morality, Jesus didn't run for office or stage a coup. In fact he even made some clear statements about rendering unto Caesar*. Likewise, for my fellow Jews, recall that when G-d wanted us to have a king tied to religion, he gave us one, and when he wanted someone else to run political matters, he took all that away. Maybe there is a reason for this? Maybe G-d knows that faith is best left out of the hands of government? Well, I doubt I will convince those who think government exists to enforce personal morality, but had to give it a try. (For those curious about my arguments, see "
The State and Morality" and "
A Bit More Explanation".)
I think that covers most of the arguments I have read. Just wanted to make clear, though I have always worried about Huckabee, as he seems both to favor big government and to favor allowing government to act in areas best left alone (as well as favoring the "FairTax" which I admit to distrusting -- see "
An Interesting Analogy", "
The Runaway Stagecoach" and "
Keyhole Thinking"), I am criticizing him entirely on the merits here.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
* I tend to avoid dabbling in Christian theology, if, for no other reason, than to not give offense, as members of any group tend to get upset when an outsider tries to understand their rules and explain or apply them. So I won't go any farther into questions of explicit Christian theology, as I am likely to upset someone because of what they take to by my presumption in so doing, and, in any case, the many different interpretations given to Jesus' words will doubtless mean someone will disagree with any argument. But allow me to make a non-theological argument. There are many, many denominations of Christianity. And even within those denominations there are countless more individual understandings. So, if you give control over morality to the state, with the power to use force to enforce its decisions, how do you know it will enforce your understanding of Christianity? And if it doesn't, what is to prevent it from forcing you to take actions you consider immoral? Isn't it better to leave each free to pursue his own conscience, rather than try to force individuals to conform to a single morality? (See "
The Inherent Disappointment of Authoritarianism" for a secular application of the same logic.)