Huckabee (from the article): “Eventually, having shifted public opinion, we can solidify the attitude and atmospheric changes with government actions that define the will of the majority.”
Author’s Reaction: “So just to review here, you think that as a politician it’s your job to 1) determine behavior bad for us, 2) build consensus that it’s bad and 3) once you have a majority, make that bad behavior illegal.”
I quit reading at this point, as it’s clearly written by someone willing to go to any lengths to make a point. Huckabee did not say, in the quoted portion, anything about making “bad behavior illegal.”
What he did say is that, once a consensus has developed, government should take actions that would “solidify the attitude and atmospheric changes” that had occurred. The author sets up his straw man by claiming that Huckabee is saying “make it illegal” and then goes on to demolish his own straw man.
America is getting fat. Wouldn’t it be nice if a leader not only set the example, but also managed to convince people that they could change their behaviors voluntarily and at least start feeding their own kids better? To hell with themselves. At least try to stop consigning your own kids to years of ill health in the future by stuffing them with McFoods on a daily basis.
Then, after years of effective persuasion has actually begun to show consistent results (that would be good leadership, incidentally) can’t anyone imagine even a single legislative effort that would encourage the positive trend? Here’s just one: No sales taxes on fruits and vegetables. Insidious? I can just see the uproar now.
As I said, I quit reading at that point. Anyone capable of turning what he said into “illegal” is not honest and not worth reading.
I think you are being unfair to the author and also not thinking your own ideas through. You are implying that there is a fundamental difference between making something illegal and taxing it. I disagree. What if the tax on a small bag of potato chips is $5 per bag?
Nanny staters always say that their nanny state is reasonable and reflects the will of the people. No tax on apples but tax potato chips. Well, what about Fritos? Doritos? Tortilla chips? Tortillas? Corn meal? Fresh corn?
How many people are you going to hire at what salary to sit around and decide where along the spectrum between fresh corn and potato chips the tax kicks in? And how will you assure that this decision and millions of others like it are reasonable and reflect the will of the people?
There are fundamental issues at play here. I don't think Mike Huckabee understands them the same way I do. I think that maybe you don't either.
“America is getting fat. Wouldn’t it be nice if a leader not only set the example, but also managed to convince people that they could change their behaviors voluntarily and at least start feeding their own kids better? To hell with themselves. At least try to stop consigning your own kids to years of ill health in the future by stuffing them with McFoods on a daily basis.”
America is getting fat. America is also in the middle of a world war for the survival of civilization, so forgive me if I want a leader who is not so focused on trivialities like whether I had a greaseburger for lunch that he doesn’t see the clear and present existential threat to our nation. And based on his frighteningly juvenile foreign policy position paper, Huckabee may know his calorie counts and fat grams, but he has no clue about the nature of the Islamofascist threat.
It is the President’s job as Commander-in-Chief to ensure our security. Conversely, the President has no Constituional authority as Nanny-in-Chief. In fact, the Constitution clearly states that Americans are to be secure in their persons, even if those persons are larger than Huckabee would prefer.