Monday, November 26, 2007

On politic, Ron Paul and Huckabee

On my recent post on Huckabee, commenter Lee Strong levels the extreme liberalism comment at my post. He makes some good points that in many cases, Huckabee sounds very conservative.

I am wary of Huckabee because he talks a good game, catering to the religious voters. But how does he stand on other "small government" items. According to Thomas Woods Jr. in his
Open Letter to the Catholic Community in Behalf of Ron Paul, not so well. via CfRP
On education and home schooling, Ron Paul is the clear winner. Fred Thompson, John McCain, and Duncan Hunter all voted for the execrable No Child Left Behind Act, and Governors Mike Huckabee and Mitt Romney have both come out in favor of it. Ron Paul – as did the Republican Party itself not so long ago – opposes any federal role in education, which is the responsibility of parents and local communities.

In other words, Ron Paul believes in a little something called subsidiarity, which happens to be a central principle of Catholic social thought. Subsidiarity holds that all social functions should be carried out by the most local unit possible, as opposed to the dehumanizing alternative whereby distant bureaucratic structures are routinely and unthinkingly entrusted with more and more responsibilities for human well-being.
And if you look at it from a Catholic perspective, Ron Paul scores a 99 on the Evaluation of 2008 Presidential Candidates Against US Bishops' Criteria. Huckabee scores a 69 while Mitt Romney had to clarify his positions to get up to a 10. Giuliani? At the bottom with negative 28.

But back to Huckabee and Ron Paul, the only two candidates I would consider. Huckabee follows rank with the current Republican agenda of "No Child Left Behind (or untaxed)". So he seems to be a panderer. Thrown out there to keep the religious voters happily involved. He has done surprisingly well, so he sticks around. But he isn't going to turn this country around. Bush had that same quiet "humility" and faith about him before he was elected.

I have said it before and will again. When you bind yourself too closely with a party, be it Republican or Democrat, you will be disappointed. And then what options are left? Sinking with the ship or leaping of into the big wide ocean, not knowing which way to swim.


The New Arch Druid's take on the news said...

That's a very good argument for keeping church separate from state. Religious groups have, since the 1970s rode on the backs of political parties on the hopes that they would obtain assured political power. I'd suggest reading the bible on this, that's not what Christ taught. And removing these entangling alliances would assure for the church less threat of very real corruption and a greater likelihood of achieving spiritual purity.

KaleJ said...

I think many religious voters prefer the limited government. And you see that with the support for Ron Paul.

But sadly, many are taken in by the promise of instant "fix" by the big government.

Anonymous said...

What was Ron Pauls stance on human cloning?