COLUMN: IDIOTS (HEART) HUCKABEE
The Media’s Dangerous Tolerance of Anti-Intellectualism
Mike Huckabee isn’t qualified for public office. He may not be smart enough to hold a job. Yet he could become our next president.
Huckabee’s upset victory in the Iowa caucuses is cited as evidence that American democracy still works. “At a Friday night event,” right-wing columnist William Kristol opined in the New York Times, “[Huckabee] played bass with a local rock band, Mama Kicks. One secular New Hampshire Republican’s reaction: ‘Gee, he’s not some kind of crazy Christian.”
Huckabee is an affable, funny, ordinary Joe on a shoestring budget who trounced a slick multimillionaire. But he’s also a crazy Christian. And he won because crazy Christians motivated by anti-Mormon bigotry voted for him.
In the Republican Party, hate trumps cash.
If Huckabee were Muslim, he’d be a radical Islamist. Denying separation of church and state, he said at a Baptist convention in 1998 that he got into politics because he “knew government didn’t have the real answers, that the real answers lie in accepting Jesus Christ into our lives.”
A Muslim Huckabee would agree with the Taliban’s requirement that women wear burqas. Also in 1998, he signed a newspaper ad in USA Today supporting “biblical principles of marriage and family life,” including one that said that a “wife is to submit herself graciously to the servant leadership of her husband even as the church willingly submits to the headship of Christ.”
The ex-preacher/ex-governor is entitled to his extreme religious beliefs. His inability to reason logically is what makes his political ascendancy frightening.
“I feel homosexuality is an aberrant, unnatural, and sinful lifestyle, and we now know it can pose a dangerous public health risk,” said Huckabee in 1992. (When asked about his remark in December 2007, he reaffirmed it: “Well I believe it would be–just like lying is sinful and stealing is sinful.”) Whether gays sin by having sex or by merely existing, I know not and do not care. What I know for certain is the difference between the unusual and the unnatural.
Insofar as the majority of people are straight, heterosexuality is the norm of sexual orientation. Yet it hardly follows that gays, estimated to account for between two and five percent of the U.S. population, are aberrant. It may be (and probably is) that it’s normal for two to five percent of people to be gay. Only two percent of Americans have red hair, but redheads aren’t unnatural. The vast majority of the world’s biomass is composed of krill and insects, but humans aren’t abnormal.
During his 1992 run for Senate, Huckabee called for HIV/AIDS patients to be forcibly isolated from the general population. “If the federal government is truly serious about doing something with the AIDS virus,” he argued, “we need to take steps that would isolate the carriers of this plague. It is difficult to understand the public policy towards AIDS. It is the first time in the history of civilization in which the carriers of a genuine plague have not been isolated from the general population…” Even though it was common knowledge at the time, Huckabee apparently didn’t know that HIV/AIDS cannot be spread by casual contact (like “a genuine plague”).
Similarly, Huckabee has said that “extraordinary means [are] being taken to make sure these detainees [at Guantánamo] are being given really every consideration.” Again, he’s entitled to his outlandish views–in this case, supporting the kidnapping, torture, force-feeding and long-term imprisonment of children as young as 13 without charging them with a crime or allowing them to be represented by a lawyer. But when he describes this inhumane treatment as giving detainees “really every consideration,” he’s either dumb or lying.
Nearly 150 years after Charles Darwin published The Origin of Species, the scientific debate over natural selection is as settled as the medieval controversy over heliocentrism. Evolution is a fact. But Mike Huckabee denies this fact.
As a radical Christian fundamentalist, Huckabee believes that every word of the Bible is literal truth–that Jonah actually hung out in the belly of a whale for 72 hours, that Samson really pushed down a stone building with brute force. He thinks God made the earth in six days, that the universe is 6000 years old. Never mind carbon-dating. “I do not necessarily buy into the traditional Darwinian theory, personally,” he said on his show on–get this!–the Arkansas Educational Television Network.
“If you want to believe that you and your family came from apes, I’ll accept that,” Huckabee said recently. “I believe there was a creative process.”
So Huckabee is an idiot. Or is he pandering to idiots?
A 2005 CNN/USA Today/Gallup poll found that 53 percent of Americans believe that “God created humans in their present form exactly the way the Bible describes it.” Reported The Chicago Tribune: “The results closely paralleled those in polls taken over the last 20 years, in which nearly half of all Americans consistently agreed that ‘God created human beings pretty much in their present form at one time within the last 10,000 years or so.'” In light of Tocqueville’s warning that democracy requires well-educated and well-informed citizens in order to function, it’s alarming that many of these people vote.
There’s no denying Huckabee’s folksy appeal. He sounds moderate, even populist, on issues like immigration, trade and the environment. But those sugar coatings conceal the bitter pill of anti-intellectualism, a toxin that has turned the American presidency into an entropic argument against evolution–from Washington and Jefferson, to Hoover and FDR, then to the Ford and the Bushes and finally…Huckabee?
“I’m not sure what in the world [my view of evolution] has to do with being president of the United States,” Huckabee says.
Those who deny scientific fact will be wrong (or lie) about anything. Misrepresenting hard and fast truth is unacceptable. Whether Huckabee is feigning idiocy to appeal to religious zealots or is honestly mentally deficient, journalists have a duty not to treat him like a serious candidate.
COPYRIGHT 2008 TED RALL
19 Comments.
Ted, time and time again I have sung your praises. The reason the right is fielding such a weak group of candidates is because they DON'T WANT TO WIN! Why would they want the next presidency? It would be like being last in line for the toilet on game day. By the time you get there there is no toilet paper. Huckabee is my man. No other party should clean up the pile for bush.
"fuckabee"
Switch "Huckabee" with "Gore" and "creationism" with "global warming" and you'd have a hell of a column!
Those who deny scientific fact will be wrong (or lie) about anything. Misrepresenting hard and fast truth is unacceptable.
"Fascist Christ, come to the rescue! Fascist Christ, come to the rescue! Fascist Christ, come to the rescue, gimme that old time religion! Here it comes!!!"
Intellect is alway the first casualty of the fascists. In our case , we get what we deserve. Electing a jabbering idiot President has lowered the standards on everything from politics to music. The lowest common denominator has been reached. Hatred, fear and scapegoating. Just like Mussolini and Hitler before, it's good to work with whats been proven. Maybe this time the crusade will wipe out all the Cathars/Jews/Muslims/intellectuals/pot smokers/homosexuals/negroes/injuns/mexicans so they can go to work on their own. But before they get the cattle cars rollin' again, I hope they remember to remove the plank from their own eyes.
P.S.It may be foolish of me, but I really believe the Beatles kept the sixties from consuming us. Can you imagine what would have happened if we only had Jim Morrison?? This place would still be burning. Leather pants and animal sacrifices. Hmmmmm….
Switch "Huckabee" with "Gore" and "creationism" with "global warming" and you'd have a hell of a column!
Pul-leeze.
Global warming may only be accepted as fact by 99% of relevant scientists (as opposed to 100% for evolution), but you'd have to be pretty thick to deny both (a) the obvious logic of what's likely to happen when you pump CO2 and other gases into the atmosphere in vast amounts and (b) the dramatic and recent changes in our climate.
Gore is obviously on the side of science here. His main error is his claim that we can stop global warming by driving hybrid cars and changing our lifestyle.
It's probably too late to stop global warming or to save the polar ice cap. Too much energy has already been pumped into the atmosphere. Any changes we can make would have to be extreme and dramatic–de-industrialization on a vast scale, internationally, mandated by governments willing to expropriate assets from reticent corporations to force compliance. Regime change with saving the earth as the main battle cry would have to sweep the planet. Not likely, to say the least.
huckabee schmuckabee
The only thing as depressing as Huckabee's idiocy (and Ted's right about that) is the sheer number of emotionally retarded morons posting here who can only seem to make their political points by mocking the man's last name.
This is elementary-school-play-ground caliber debate. Sad.
I don't like the man either, but if I can't think of anything better that childish rhymes with his name then I wouldn't post.
A comment about Global Warming:
The very notion that Global Warming is 'in debate' validates Ted's article about the media's unacceptable tolerance of anti-intellectualism. This is not only a debate that has been settled within the Scientific community, it was settled a decade ago. All the debate surrounding Global Warming (more succinctly, Climate Change) is discussion about how to curb our impact.
All anyone who is really interested in knowing about this needs to do is go to their nearest university and talk to anyone in physical sciences.
The people who deny global warming sound exactly the same to me as the people who deny the holocaust. They use the same terms and arguments (conspiracy to cover up the truth, not enough research done).
Now on to my Ted Shred:
Ted, I love the article and I think it touches on an excellent point. Let me make this absolutely clear: Mike Huckabee has a slim chance at best to win the nomination, and even if he does, he's going to lose miserably in the general election.
The reason is plain as day in Pat Robertson's moronic endorsement of Giuliani: Mike Huckabee does not represent the theocratic fascist regime that put George W. Bush in office, he is the next generation evangelical who, for all his delusions, is compassionate and is not an outright neo-liberal corporate fascist.
For this, his candidacy will be smashed like a clam on the tummy of corporate America: Simply put, he'd invest in education, social welfare programs, health care, etc, because he does believe in caring for people. He's a nice guy, and we should support his doomed campaign because he fractures the Republican Party at its core.
In short, he is what they deserve, and every vote for Huckleberry hastens the ultimate collapse of the Fascist Trifecta that is the modern GOP (Military fascism, theocratic fascism, corporate fascism).
I like the subtitle, but, the media (minus certain parts of the Internet) goes way beyond "tolerating" anti-intellectualism–it actively promotes it and doesn't tolerate intellect!
"The only thing as depressing as Huckabee's idiocy (and Ted's right about that) is the sheer number of emotionally retarded morons posting here who can only seem to make their political points by mocking the man's last name. This is elementary-school-play-ground caliber debate. Sad. I don't like the man either, but if I can't think of anything better that childish rhymes with his name then I wouldn't post."
"Fuckabees" is From the same movie Ted was referencing in the title of his column. You were probably too busy watching Toy Story II at the time it came out. Furthermore, the Supreme Court has endorsed the f-word as the only way to communicate disrespect, disgust and militant opposition at the same time with one word. (Cohen v California)
Good thing you posted anonymously.
Couple of points about "global warming" and CO2.
First, the globe has always been either warming or cooling long before humans were here. So I challenge you: Please tell me what the average earth temperature should be right now if we weren't here?
Second: You have it backwards; increased CO2 is not causing global warming. Increased CO2 in the atmosphere is a result of warming oceans.
Third: Your argument that we are like holocaust deniers is disgusting, but typical of the religion of global warming. You try to shut down debate by calling names.
Edward, Just curious. Would it make any difference to you if you found out CO2 did cause global warming?
You may want to check this out.
Ed, couple of responses to your points, and then a few questions regarding your take on things
1) Your question is irrelevant to any discussion of what we, as humans, should do (or not do) about climate change. Unless you also think it would be a worthwhile discussion to talk about the upcoming presidential elections in a world without humans.
2) Warmer oceans are not able to absorb as much CO2 (or other gases, for that matter) as cooler oceans. Which, more importantly, means that plankton which use CO2 to make 'shells' and then die and become carbonaceous sediment on the bottom of the ocean are not 'fed' as much CO2. Which means that, when looking at ocean core samples, periods of global warming are highlighted by periods of lowered carbonaceous sediment in the core. (this also has to do with an uplift of the CCD at the same time, but, ok, I'll stop talking science for now)
However, it is disingenious to suggest that atmospheric CO2 has increased just because of decreased oceanic/planktonic absorption of CO2, when a much more likely culprit is human burning of geologically sequestered carbon in the form of fossil fuels.
However, under your logic, increased atmospheric CO2 is not causing global warming, so why do you even discuss CO2 if you apparently think it does nothing?
3) The tactics that the oil industry uses to deny global warming are, literally, equivalent to or the same as the tactics that the tobacco industry used/uses to deny a link between smoking and lung cancer.
Obviously both global climate and the human body are complicated, and it's difficult in either case to pinpoint one activity and say, positively, that it causes harm. That's the fun of science, wherein it is much easier to disprove something than to prove it, and even then it's not so much proven as it is extremely likely, etc. etc.
So the tobacco industry does as much work as it can to disprove its product causes cancer, and the oil industry does as much work as it can to disprove its product artificially warms the planet.
Anyway, under your scenario of events, the oceans started warming (somehow), which caused an increase in atmospheric CO2, which scientists then noticed (in conjunction with rising atmospheric temperatures), and then falsely concluded that CO2 caused the warming, when it is (under your scenario) the reverse scenario.
In this scenario:
a) what is the cause of the oceanic warming?
b) can we humans do anything to stop this warming?
c) how can adding CO2 into the atmosphere at present or increased levels help the situation?
The third question, to me, is important, since it seems pretty obvious that CO2 and temperature are linked. And it is possible that global temperatures started to increase, which then caused CO2 to start increasing, which added to global warming, positive feedback cycle, etc.
However, unless you are making the statement that CO2, a greenhouse gas, causes no positive effect on global temperatures, then it makes no sense to say that we should not care, at all, about our dumping of it into the atmosphere.
Angelo;
"I Heart Huckabees" was self-indugent tripe from an overrated, actor-abusing, pretentious, pseudo-intellectual hack. Not at all surprised you seem to like it.
David O. Russell (and you for all I know) may be a very smart person. It's just that nothing he's done so far (especially the afore-mentioned snooze-fest) demonstrates this to be true.
For my money the simple pleasures of, oh say for example, "Toy Story II" are far more enjoyable than someone shrilly trying to prove how clever he is.
My point, however, remains. And thanks for helping to prove it!
Best,
Anonymous
Portrait of a troll 2
second in an infinite series
Tactics:
1) Enters conversation with a sobbing lament on vulgarity and netiquette, but calls others pretentious.
2) swears that nettiquette is just as important as the matter of the discussion.
3) offers no opinion on the subject of the discussion.
4) says contrived shit like "I'm a liberal too, but…" or "I don't like Huckabee either, but…"
5) When reminded what the topic is about, he/she goes even more off topic.
6) says stuff like: "my point remains" after having made no point.
7) googles "I heart huckabees" and regurgitates reviews from imdb.com". (see reviews #1 and #5) (calling a comedy movie, as opposed to a documentary, "psuedo-intellectual", or "self-indulgent" is a redundancy typically committed by fragile social conservatives .)
please, try to comment on Mike Huckabee and/or evolution before you start judging other's language or you are nothing more than a troll, and everyone knows it. Also, make up a fucking name. Any name, so that we know you are not, say, the first anonymouse.
Actually, I saw the friggin' thing in the theatre. Did NOT google it, but hey let's not let facts get in the way of denunications — that's the liberal way. Also, enough with the assumptions! I'm not in any way shape or form a conservative, social or otherwise. But since I don't like the same crappy movies that you do, that MUST, of course, mean that I differ from you in everyway.
As for Mike Huckabee, tool. And evolution is so confirmed a fact that I felt no need to add on to the dog pile. Anyone who doesn't believe in it is a tool.
Also, I believe I DID make a point when I claimed that making up rhyming names for Huckabee was elementary-school-play-ground-level rhetoric. And, it was really directed at the posted who came up the witty bon mot of schmuckabee. Angelo, though i doublt you'll believe me, I got your reference to that movie the first time I read it. Didn't think it was clever or "on topic" (which you seem to care so much about), but I got it. Then you went after me in the way you'r now so offended that iwen after you.
Hypocracy is another big libbie rhetorical tool.
And, in the spirit of your suggestion, I picked a fake name. How do you like it?
Worst,
A-I-A-T
1) You hated the movie, but you know obscure facts about the director and your critique was cut-n-pasted.
2) You still think that being a nettiquette nazi was warranted
3) You think saying "schmuchabee" is "childish" but calling him a "tool" and saying you "don't like" him is the pinnacle of elevated debate.
4) You did it all because you did not want to "pile on".
5) You failed.
I never "went after you" or called you conservative. You tried to go after others instead of posting about Mike Huckabee, and I slapped you down for it. You have to understand that people like you come in here all of the time and have nothing to offer, so they exhibit the same pattern of behavior.
That's true. In fact you called me a "fragile social concervative." If you're going to deny (and lie about) something,you should probably not do it about something so easily disconfirmed simply by checking your previous posts.
And from WHERE excatly were my comments cut and pasted? Or does that just mean you're trying to discredit opinions different from your own by casting doubt on them. Are you in politics by any chance?
Also, you're dig about how I was probably watching Toy Story 2 sure seemed like you were going after me for posting an opinion you didn't agree with.
And I DID go after people (and never claimed not to or that I'm not doing so now), but because they posted about Huckabee (pro or con) but for the way they were doing so.
And it's funny how someone posting a "infinite series" about the "anatomy of trolls" is after me for being a "nettiqutte [N]azi." Seems a tad hypocritcal to me…
Also, so far as I can tell, anyone who offers comments or feedback YOU don't like are those who "have nothing to offer." Typically judgmental crap.
That said, you're absolutely right to call me on the "Huckabee as tool" comments I made. They didn't do anything to raise the level of debate and I'm sorry about posting them.
And I both saw the movie (I see MANY MANY movies — its kinda my job) AND hated it. I find it very hard to form opinions about movies I haven't seen yet. Or do you only see movies you know you already like?
Ted cites the presidential sequence "…Washington and Jefferson, to Hoover and FDR, then to the Ford and the Bushes and finally…Huckabee?", as apparent proof evolution is not occurring. I would counter that devolution itself, is still de-evolution. This presidential de-evolution is not its own cause. Rather, it occurs in direct proportion to the rate of under-education among voters such that the president is more and more like a growing number of voters. This trend applies especially to logic and critical thinking. Most basic, however, is reading comprehension!!!.
1)Did I call you any name in any of the above text?
2)Did I ever indicate that I like any movie?
I can understand why you would misinterpret cracks at your apparent age (toy story), or un-originality (, "regurgitation" "cut-n-paste"). You did not get it for the same reason you think you were being called names. Like so many people in this country, you lack the ability to understand, remember or think critically about what you have read. Put simply, your reading comprehension sucks!
Do you see the problem this presents?
It does not matter that you do not think you are a "concervative"(sic.), since you lack the ability to critically understand what conservatism is, even after reading the book. You could be a lower-case nazi for all you know…Hell, you might not yet even know whether or not you like certain movies, since you probably cannot even comprehend the dialog.
So, do you agree with me on the root cause of presidential de-evolution?