It's not a new line of argument, but since Huckabee is the latest to offer it, I'm going to pick on him. "You know what was great about Jesse Helms," he asks. "He didn't care what you thought about his view, but you were going to always know where he stood because he stood for something and he stood clearly."
This is, Huckabee suggests, a good thing. But without looking at the content of those positions to which he held so dearly, I don't see why? Steadfastness is good in and of itself? No matter how wrong-headed? No matter what cause it is in support of?
Osama bin Laden is steadfast, but I don't think Huckabee would apply this standard to him. But why not? Osama doesn't care what we think about his views, and we always know where he stands. But with Osama, we don't stop there. We move to the next step and examine his positions on their merits. And of course when we do that, we all agree that he is an awful, evil human being.
Now I know it sounds like I'm being deliberately controversial here, and I will admit it: I am. But it is in service of a larger point. I honestly want to know what the standard is that separates these two examples. On the one hand, we are to admire and respect for someone for their steadfastness in holding to beliefs that we are not supposed to examine. On the otherhand, we are to ignore an individual's steadfastness so that we can examine the content of their beliefs. What I want to know is this: what is the objective standard that allows us in advance to hold these two to separate standards. And I want to know so that I can apply it objectively in the future.
It's not too much to ask that people be consistent, is it?
Subscribe to this blog's feed
