Mike Huckabee is an original

I was recently listening to a number of videos on YouTube that outlined the policies and positions of folks who are currently running for office, and I have to say that so far I find myself genuinely in-line with a lot of what Mike Huckabee has to say. From national security to immigration to energy independence, I think he is one of the most well rounded candidates with a good handle on the role and power of government.

Recently, having relocated to the upper east coast, I took the time to visit the governmental historical sites in Philadelphia, PA. And walking through those exhibits and visiting the Liberty Bell and the locations where the Declaration of Independence was signed and set into motion, it quickly becomes clear how far from our foundation our government has drifted. I recall a moment when the tour-guide gives a speech about the electing of the first president of the United States and shared that the founding primary goal of our President (as it continues to exist today) is to provide protection and liaise on behalf of America with leaders of other nations. This is a tricky topic because it is the specific delegated responsibility of the President to care about these things (protection), but the press takes that understanding and turns the mention of it into "war-mongering." In fact, I would go so far as to say that the policies of many of our candidates reflect a complete rejection of that presidential duty.

I also completely LOVE the ideas that Huckabees has about healthcare. In summary, he believes that would we do better as a nation to help move healthcare out from under the responsibility of our employers, over to the indispensability of individuals, in the form of "portable healthcare" that focuses and invests in prevention and not the management of reacting to diseases.

Huckabee says that the solution is, "either give every person in America the same healthcare that Congress has, or give Congress the same healthcare that every American has. They will get it fixed." Now, if you listened to that statement in a vacuum you might be mistaken and imagine that he is in favor of universal healthcare that offers all Americans that same plan that congressmen get. He explains that our American health "system" is upside down, in that it focuses on dealing with disease and not wellness and prevention. "We've got a system that, no matter how much money we pour into it, we're not going to fix it." He goes on to say, "we're not going to fix it until we address the fact that this country has put it's focus not on wellness, not on prevention, not on health, but on sickness." He explains that it is like owning a boat that is taking on water and our reaction isn't to plug the hole, but to get a bigger bucket to scoop the water out. He is about inspiring and investing in making this sort of change first, then making personal healthcare plans more attainable by people and not by companies who are simply looking out for companies and not for their people.

I think the most wise part of the last statement, is that Huckabee is acknowledging that fundamentally, companies are meeting their requirement for providing a health plan to fulltime employees, but at the most basic level, the company has to look out for it's bottomline. I can say that I would trust the help of a friend quicker that I have ever felt a company itself reach out and provide special support to me as a hurting or in-need individual. The same logic applies to the government, in my opinion. I would trust a government helping to move the healthcare system to a more health and wellness focus while making me responsible to carry my "plan" regardless of who my employer is. I don't think that the government has a good track record of taking my tax dollars and doing much more than meeting a self-imposed requirement or simply bailing the water out of a sinking ship. Now, while that sounds heavy and negative and not very trusting, I would say that this is actually quite empowering. The idea that the government would return to it's roots and support OUR rights and personal philanthropy rather than simply take my money and fiscally support ineffective solutions, feels more like our nations commitment to protect rather than provide in that it: protects us from special interest, protects us from unregulated self-regulated governmental spending, helps us grow as individuals by handing us back our bank accounts and making us responsible again for be generous with one another rather than giving us a false sense of philanthropy by paying our dues in the form of taxes and depending on the effectiveness of federal programs.

I will end with this note: I recently watched the news on Super Tuesday and observed that many people leaving the polls (not to pick on democrats, but it was statistically significant in the reporting of MSNBC) when asked why they were voting for the candidate they explained who they voted for by unintentionally simply regurgitating the marketed campaign of that individual. For example, when someone said they voted for Obama, when asked why, they said "He will bring the change we need." (Sound familiar) When asked the same question for those voting for H. Clinton they said "She has the experience." These are the punchlines that both Obama and Clinton have been campaigning with around the country. Ironically enough, later that night, Jay Leno was interviewing these same Americans out on the street. When he showed a Picture of a candidate, they named the candidate with ease "OBama"... "Clinton." But then when asked, "What is candidate Obama's first name?" the response was, "I don't know. I bet Oprah knows!" So, while this is not a scientific analysis, it makes me sad to think that as Americans, we know that "Obama" is supported by "Oprah," and "Obama" is the candidate for "change," most Americans don't have a clue what sort of "change" Obama represents, let alone his first name. How could someone vote for Obama's "change" and not know if they are compatable with the sort of "change" Obama says he wants to bring? My hope is that, in the least, you know the first names of all of the candidates, and that rather than simply sing songs about their campaign slogans, we would realy know and morally back and identify with the goals and character of these candidates, so that when we vote, we are moving the country in the right direction.

The most offered answer when asking why someone would not vote for a candidate goes something like this, "I am not sure that candidate can actually win." Well, one thing is for sure. The one who wins, is the one that we vote for. If you ever wanted to "do your part," then go vote as a self-educated American, truly knowing what your candidate represents. Remember that you are not provided for by your government. You provide for your government and lend your local and state to federal resources so it can server appropriately and not the other way around.

"People in this country, in a very unique experiment loan certain rights to the government in order that they might have protection from enemies, foreign and domestic. But the essential purpose of government was to protect, not to provide. Remember what Abraham Lincoln said, that a government that can do everything for you is a government that can take everything from you." - Mike Huckabee

(If you want to ge a quick understanding Mike Huckabee on a number of issues, check out: Best of Mike Huckabee on YouTube.)