I’ve often thought that liberalism was a kind of secularized Christianity where the universiality and compassion of Christianity is writ large and made into a political value, with the difficult commands for personal transformation totally removed. But sometimes that liberalism “in the air,” so to speak, infects views of believing Christians. This, I believe, is what happened to Mike Huckabee, the governor and pardoner extraordinaire of Arkansas. Like Bush who thought he “could see into Putin’s soul,” Huckabee had great power in his ability to discern redemption in the con-artists, liars, and violent thugs who know to a man how to game the system and appear contrite. Huckabee apparently some years ago released the guy who murdered four cops in Washington State. This violent animal had apparently 70 years to go on his sentence–and many violations of probation to boot–when Huckabee thought he had mended his ways and gave great weight to his youth in sentencing. Well, guess what, violent youths are often violent adults. And certain acts of violence are so severe that the only safe course is confinement until very old age.
This horror show will definitely deep six Huckabee’s ability to get a Republican nomination, if he ever had one. But will he realize that his view on the meaning of Christianity is too abstract, sentimental, maudlin, and divorced from the realities of the criminal element to do him any good? Part of the structure of life and the good of government is punishment to the wicked. It’s not merely necessary for the common good, though it is, but it’s also to the good of the offender. It’s a way to pay back to society the harm one caused, reflect on the disorders of one’s soul, and be kept apart from innocent people whom one might harm in a fit of passion. This is missing in the view of Huckabee and other sentimentalists. The “once saved, always saved” idea that we’re “reborn” forever in Protestantism can’t make sense of the drama of human life and the need for social control. It ignores the passions and the broken souls and has a thoroughly immature and, lately, feminized view of the Gospels and of government. We see a bit of this in Catholic anti-death penalty crusaders, as well. Do they not believe in Divine governance of the universe and the ultimate disposition of souls justly and mercifully in the next life?
We’re told to be scared of the religious right. But how much more harm has the religious left wrought with its ignorant campaigns to release criminals, redistribute wealth through socialism, and open borders?
Subscribe To This Feed
“This horror show will definitely deep six Huckabee’s ability to get a Republican nomination, if he ever had one.”
Au contraire. A singular slip on his resume isn’t enough to trump his ultra conservative pedigree. MH’s political strength is his eye-for-eye, biblical inerrancy perspectives, all of which are adored amidst the hard right. He has staying power with that crowd, despite this mistake.
He’d never get the leftist vote, anyway, so that’s a moot point, leaving only the center coalitions to examine or debate. Well, it’s safe to say that as many therein are soft on crime and punishment as are hard on it. Huckabee would be measured by them if at all in totality, besides. And that further invites the question of which candidate would dare try to exploit this incident, at Huckabee’s expense. Recall, he’s nearly the perfect two spot if he loses the one spot.
Palin? Romney? Gingrich? Mum (mmm) is the word. I don’t see any trying to out-do Huckabee as being more hard-core toward criminals. Nor is this matter a Dukakis-Horton replay. Dukakis was 1) a liberal 2) anti-death penalty and 3) a fool for saying without emotion what he said, when asked about his wife being raped.
Bush was able to easily sell Dukakis as a pinko. No one alive can market Huckabee in that vein.
Note: the new blog attire is attractive. Good job. On the name thing: how about “Preservationism beyond the Paleos”?
He didn’t get the nomination last time because a great number of business, small government, and outside-the-south conservatives were freaked out by his loose and sentimental schtick. This does tie into that demerit, and he’s done. Four dead cops will do it, as will his weak and responsibility-avoiding non-apology.
My understanding is that Gov. Huckabee commuted the prisoner’s original sentence to allow for the possibility of parole (citing his youth at the time of sentencing). The parole board of Arkansas then paroled him. He was also mishandled by the Washington state authorities, so we have a much deeper problem than Mr. Huckabee’s sentimentality. I consider life without parole sentences to be cruel and unusual punishment. If you did something meriting such a sentence, then you ought to be executed. I do favor long sentences for youthful violent offenders, however. This would keep them incarcerated during the years they would most likely commit more violent crimes. It would allow a prisoner to build a post-incarceration life if he so chose and prevent the clogging of prisons with senior citizens who are of minimal danger to society. Fear not, Mr. Huckabee’s other defects will keep him out of the White House in any case.
I kind of agree in the abstract, but this guy had multiple offenses at an early age and clearly was a bit of a sociopath. I do think “striking while the iron is hot” and executing such people is good for them and society rather than letting them age 30-40 years and become, in effect, a different person often enough, a different person whom it feels morally uncomfortable to continue punishing. Not always, of course. Many monsters become bigger monsters in prison. But not always. And good behavior in an institution doesn’t necessarily predict one can handle freedom profitably for oneself or society.
I think he straight up commuted the sentence and let him be released. The board thought he deserved it and the prosecutor disagreed. It’s weird to me someone with such a long sentence for a violent crime and with no other redeeming characteristics would catch the governor’s eye.
” I consider life without parole sentences to be cruel and unusual punishment. If you did something meriting such a sentence, then you ought to be executed.”
You might want to reconfigure.
Most of the “without parole” sentences today effectively (de facto) arise from the 3-strikes, habitual offender laws. Under your theory, we’d be executing a person an hour or so.
Obviously, the serial-cop-child-killers or KSM types should just be shot (though I suspect he’ll get “life without…” since it’s a liberal NY venue).
(And maybe Roach should post on that topic-at what point do illegal combatants not get civilian protections, such that the constitution is not a suicide pact.)
But a bucketload of life sentences sans parole arise from a series of “victimless” mundane burglariesand such; i.e, they reflect repeat felonies strung together.
Surely you’re not saying we should execute those who repeatedly steal, say, hi-def tvs three or four times, or baked goods when they get hungry? Or even the dude who sells pot and is caught three times?
Otherwise, I think you are right re: Huckabee. He’s beyond taking the hit for this stunt, solo. It ain’t like whatshisname cop-killer has been on the street since then. I suspect Roach wants to stigmatize Huckabee for reasons not quite stated, maybe political or religious. Hell, Bush commuted Henry Lee Lucas, who slaughtered folks like he was part of the Khmer Rouge, and Bush got elected to everything.
I don’t like three strikes laws either. Violent offenders should serve long sentences or be executed after the FIRST offense. Spending the peak criminal years in prison will protect the public and reduce the likelihood that the offender will repeat his offenses. Then you won’t need three strikes laws.