Huckabee Speech: The GOP Wages a War Against “War on Women”
Mandeville, LA – Exclusive Transcript – “Why is it, though, that the political discussion of the day, in every instance, always turns upon conditions of human existence, not human action, human existence? In other words, it turns upon conditions of: What is your gender? I’m a chick; you’re a dude. What is your sexuality? I’m straight; I’m gay. What is your color? I’m white; I’m black.” Check out today’s transcript for the rest…
Begin Mike Church Show Transcript
Mike: Former presidential candidate turned broadcaster Mike Huckabee was at a – we’ll find out in just a second. It doesn’t matter. A gentleman that writes at Forbes Magazine, James Poulos, who has, I think, a better reasoned approach to discussing this and we’ll get into it in just a second. So Huckabee said this is not a war on women, this is a war for women. That’s where Poulos comes in here and says:
Again, set aside the semiotics of the gender-victimhood language. The crucial part of the story is contained in that one little word: war. If, from a GOP standpoint, too many Republicans have exposed themselves to criticism on the politics of women, too few Republicans have a clear idea of how or why this has happened. The easy, superficial answer is that too many Republicans are old, out-of-touch, prejudiced men. The more interesting answer—one that can give party bigs more leverage if they ponder it hard enough—is that the political rhetoric of symbolic “war” is particularly dangerous for Republicans to engage in.
Republicans have a hard time saying no, as a matter of principle, to war. But in a world where even most military conflict is conducted without a declaration of war, it’s time to shift perspective. Today, Republicans have good reason to seek reform across the board on our nation’s…
Members Only Access The Founders Pass
You are missing out on crucial commentary video, audio and exclusive downloads!
See What You Are Missing Take The Tour!
OR Join Now
There will never be an end to it. In 5,000 years, if we continue this, we’ll be bickering or we’ll be trying to pose or pass policy based on condition, genetics, or otherwise. In a nomocratic system, you go about your business in your communities. You’d be saying: We’re having a problem here. Our youth are all obsessed with this Justin Bieber character. We really need to have more youth group here. Pull a Christopher Walken. [mocking Walken] “I could use a little more youth group.”
What Poulos is basically describing here is the difference between a nomocratic approach and teleocratic. Jefferson, Madison, Taylor, Henry, Mason, all those guys, late 18th century, early 19th century statesmen, almost all of them are nomocratic. The ones that were aspiring for nationalism and bigger and better and never being satisfied with the moment, always basing everything on the future and the crisis that must be solved, as he described it, they were teleocratic. The teleocrats won. As a matter of fact, I would say that the teleocrats are usually going to win unless you can neuter them by legislative action, which is to say you have a written constitution, like we used to have, that is strictly adhered to and as soon as it’s not there are dire and grave consequences for those who violate it.
End Mike Church Show Transcript