Governor Mike Huckabee Sings the Praises of Oliver Stone — A Simple Question: Why?
Indeed, Huckabee went on to agree with them when he argued that Republicans were captives of Wall Street interests, and praised the two for revealing the evils of the American system to viewers of the series. I happen to agree with those who argue that conservatives have foolishly ignored the concerns of the middle-class and working-class and have failed to address their fears with alternative programs that address their just concerns. But making this point is quite a different one than that the Governor made, as you can hear for yourself.
Huckabee ended the program by asking the two what is the main thing they want viewers to get out of their series. The answer, as you might predict, was that the true picture of the United States as the world’s villain become plain and comprehensible. In passing, Huckabee did mention Michael Moynihan’s take-down of their series on The Daily Beast, but he did not let listeners hear anything of what he wrote, nor ask them to defend themselves against Moynihan’s specific examples of deceit on the part of Stone and Kuznick. His only point was to say that there was one negative review. (Clearly, the Governor does not read The Weekly Standard, where he would have found my comprehensive critique.)
So I must ask: Why does a well-known conservative and former presidential candidate, who supposedly knows something about foreign policy, give over his air-time to two far leftist propagandists, and never argue with them? Why does he, in fact, seem to praise the two for their efforts, and indeed go on to agree with them for being anti-capitalist?
With conservatives active in the culture using their position to further pollute the culture and allow those who would destroy our country the time to reach a wide audience, who needs MSNBC when some of us can do their job on our outlets? Would PJ Media, for example, ask Stone and Kuznick to write a major piece for us? Of course not, they have already done this on Huffington Post, where one would expect to find them.
Recently, I argued that before anything else, we have to change the culture, and make inroads that will help the public have an alternative outlook other than what they get from NPR, The New York Times, The Nation magazine, and the mainstream media as a whole. All of these outlets can be counted on to engage in hype for Stone’s TV series. So why oh why is Mike Huckabee joining them?
****
I suppose that Huckabee never consulted such famous and lauded works as those by Jean-Francois Revel. See http://clarespark.com/2011/04/09/jean-francois-revel-and-father-mapple/. Thanks to Ron Radosh for nailing Huckabee. Perhaps those obsessed by social issues are oblivious to foreign policy.
Simply being pro-life does not make one a conservative. The Huckster is a fraud.
I am slow to condemn Huckabee, based on the case you make.
Conservatives need to engage our competitors. We need to hear their arguments (not straw-man versions of them.) We need to enjoy civil discourse (or we will grow bitter.) For that to happen, we need to invite progressives on our shows. Few of them will come if they are not offered a fair hearing where their points can be made, the conversation is pleasant and their reputations survive intact.
It seems a good system where Huckabee gives progressives an honest chance to make their case, and Ron Radosh offers a robust rebuttal. I come away knowing a whole lot of facts about Stalin’s threat, Wallace’s naivety and FDR’s flirtation with disaster.
I see Huckabee not as a conservative but as a right-sympathetic TV show host. He has migrated from the back rooms of politics into the cocktail parties (or whatever social gathering is now the vogue among the Left).
What is not acknowledged by the Left is that Oliver Stone and Meryl Streep can get a very sympathetic on the horrid Fox News when they offer up revisionist visions of history. Meanwhile real historians fail to even place on NPR, PBveS, CNN, CBS, etc.
The Left insists that the conservatives live in an echo chamber and they know this because that’s what everyone in their echo chamber says we do. We know they say this in their echo chamber because we visit it, frequently. We reject much of the thesis of what they say, but we hear their arguments and their lack of facts known to people on our side.
Huckabee (aka: “The Huckster,” as I refer to him) is such a complete twit, ignorant fool & overall phony four-flusher, that it’s a mystery to me why anyone has ever taken him seriously, OR considered him to be a reasonable, rational voice for Conservatism that should be listened to. I’ve never trusted the guy, he’s never struck me as being terribly bright, well-informed or even consistent, and I’ve always had the gut-feeling that he was trying to run some sort of ‘game’ on all of us, riding the crest of the Conservative movement to further his own popularity, and this latest example only proves, once again, how right I was in my assessments. He obviously either doesn’t have a clue who Oliver Stone is or has done or believes, hasn’t bothered to even check & find out (no surprise there, since this **is** Huckabee we’re talking about) or–worse–DOES know, but doesn’t care & only went soft on Stone for the sake of ratings (also no surprise, since this **is** The Huckster we’re talking about.) But really, now: we Conservatives certainly ought to be able to do better than this clown, when it comes to picking our advocates & pundits to argue our case for us.
Huckabee has always wanted to be accepted as more “compassionate” than conservative, with the exception of his consistent approach to abortion. I also think he’s always had a case of Clinton envy.
It’s typical for such people to sell out on the crime issue. Being soft on violent criminals gave him a chance to showcase his ministerial chops, so he released vicious offenders who went on to do severe damage to more victims.
Fascism and Stalinism were ideological cousins. Their outlook was different. Stalinism was a necessary dictatorship to bring the ignorant Russian masses to social utopia inorganically (as letting capitalism ravage them would have taken time). Fascism was the same way. Both were socialist doctrines. But while Stalinism believed in worldwide revolt of the proletariat, Fascism used national identity and local groups (unions, etc) to do the same utopia. So in that respect they were different, but their goals- socialism, broadly speaking- were the same.