Cuttin’ taxes and fightin’ extremists
William D. Gould, Volunteer Staff
I can predict with certainty that several of my colleagues at the prestigious Manitoban will easily dismiss Mike Huckabee as a non-viable candidate. Whether it’s his Southern Baptist roots or his white skin, Huckabee appears to be a traditional candidate in an untraditional field. What they fail to realize is that Huckabee is the most innovative, progressive, and inspiring candidate from either the Republican or Democratic party. It is not my contention that Michael Huckabee will win the American election. Rather, it is my argument that if America is serious about becoming progressive and solving its many problems particularly its weakening economy and defeating Islamofascism, then they need to elect Michael Huckabee as the Republican candidate for president of the United States.
Firstly, the United States of America is in poor economic health. The sub-prime mortgage fiasco combined with the increasing cost of the second Iraq war and President Bush’s outlandish government spending may cripple the might of the American market. One of the United States’ greatest strengths is the power of its free market. However, Bush’s spending principles are akin to Ted Kennedy’s rather than Ronald Reagan’s economic practice. For a Republican president this is alarming. Yet to elect any of the serious Democratic candidates to the White House would further fuel the fire and weaken the American economy. For example, both Barrack Obama and Hillary Clinton’s plans of increased federal spending in numerous sectors could only come about by an increase in domestic taxes, and any such tax will be a burden upon hard working men and women. America, with its disgustingly high national debt and with the oncoming threat of a recession, should not be increasing its federal spending. To suggest such a thing is pure folly.
Thankfully, Huckabee seeks to give money back to Americans through the elimination of all taxes on people’s earnings. That includes everything from taxes on savings and interest to income tax. In exchange he proposes the institution of a “fair tax,” a tax only on what people living above the poverty line spend purchasing new goods, thus the poor are not taxed at all. It is naive and folly to fall into the Democratic darkness that believes that bigger government is always better government; big government is remote, obese, lethargic, and ineffective. Rather than the government serving people, the people become enslaved to it. Unlike his Democratic colleagues, Huckabee understands this and his policy reflects such a reality. However, on the far right of the spectrum stands Mitt Romney, who believes that the free market can solve any economic problem. The free market on its own is cold, barren, and ruthless, often marginalizing more people than it favours. The hard-working Joes are at the mercy of greedy billionaires. Huckabee also understands this, thus, he is the most economically moderate of the candidates, having a strong policy for the average citizen who wants protection from corruption in government and on Wall Street.
More importantly, the United States is presiding over a critical junction in Western history. After the attacks of 9-11, Madrid, and the London bombings, Islamist jihadists have made it clear that the target is not the United States, but rather tolerance, liberalism, acceptance, and the pluralism of Western civilization. All values we as free citizens hold dear. The United States is the main participant in this war and is the standard of the free world. Huckabee has acknowledged that the enemy that Western civilization faces is unconventional. The enemy does not have conventional armies, methods, or beliefs. In its essence, the enemy is no longer ideological but theological. Many want to exclude all religion from the public sphere ignoring the liberal principle of plurality. However, in a world where religion is becoming more important, Huckabee, who has a degree in religion, realizes the threat posed by radical Islam far better than any of the other candidates in either party. It is no surprise then that he, in Churchillian terms, has continually stated that appeasement is not an option.
On the pages opposite to me it may be suggested explicitly or implicitly that certain candidates should be chosen because of their traditionally disadvantaged statuses and that by electing such a candidate it will erase mistakes of the ages. Perhaps, but I think not. If one is to elect a candidate solely or even mainly because of their gender or race it is not erasing any past mistakes but making the same one over again. Policy, personality, experience, and principle should be the main issues, and in all of these Huckabee is the clear winner. The question for America is: are the American people ready to move on?
William D. Gould is currently a second year student at the University of Winnipeg.
