EDITORIALS : Missing the other Mike
Posted on Saturday, November 8, 2008
THE FEELING SETS in most
mornings when the newspaper is all laid
out on the kitchen table and the latest news from the state Capitol hits the eye. Like an uppercut. And we feel a stab of nostalgia for the old days when Mike Huckabee—and his straight talk—were in style. Like his opinions or hate ’em, the Huck spoke his mind. He took a line, as H. L. Mencken would say. Now we’ve got a governor whose Leadership Style, to use the current unfortunate phrase, might best be described as noncommittal. It makes us long for something clear, sharp, definite. The way a bowl of tapioca calls out for some cinnamon, or white rice has you reaching for the Tabasco. Please, Guv, give us something—a wink, a nod, a simple sign of life. Take for toothless example, Mike Beebe’s “stand” on the state lottery. Even on Election Eve, he didn’t have one. That shouldn’t surprise; the lottery question was one of the more contentious on the ballot. It might have gone either way, nobody quite knew for sure, the fight was getting spirited, so of course this natural leader of men opted out. To have taken a stand on the lottery would have been risky. Somebody might have disagreed. Here’s how Mike Beebe, during his radio call-in show last week, described his position, (so to speak ) on the lottery: “This is one of those deals where it depends on what day of the week I wake up. One day I decide I’m going to vote for it, and the next day I wake up and decide I’m not going to vote for it.” It was only after the governor had actually voted on Tuesday, when there was little danger of his influencing the outcome of the election, that is, of his leading the state, that the Associated Press was able to reveal how he had voted, not that anyone might have cared by then:
LITTLE ROCK, Ark. (AP)—Gov. Mike Beebe has voted against the proposed constitutional amendment that would allow a lottery in Arkansas.
Beebe had not said ahead of time how he would vote, telling reporters that he would make up his mind on election day. After waiting about 40 minutes to cast his ballot in his hometown of Searcy, Beebe decided not to support the proposal.
Beebe spokesman Matt DeCample said the governor concluded that having a lottery would hurt the poor.
Now he tells us. Now we know—those of us who wondered what a governor who presumably keeps up with the issues thought about one that was bound to affect the finances, moral tone and general health of society. Now he’s finally realized that a state-sponsored lottery amounts to a voluntary tax on the poor and the ignorant. When it’s too late to do his bit against it. Some might even call taking a stand on such an issue part of his job. You’d have expected anything likely to hurt the poor in a state as poor as Arkansas would have drawn the immediate opposition of a real leader. So much for expectations. The lottery passed with ease.
Instead, the governor’s waffling is enough to make you wonder why he’s got a monthly call-in show at all. To let everybody know what he’s undecided about this month ? You can almost hear the announcer’s pitch: “Tune in next month for another episode of As The Beebe Turns....” The program really ought to carry a standard disclaimer: Only those questions that pose no political risk at all will be answered. Any others—especially the important, the critical, the controversial ones—will be taken under advisement. And answered later, if at all.
No wonder some of us have a bad case of Huckastalgia. The other Mike’s radio show was worth listening to. For entertainment value and a lot more. That’s because the Huck could and regularly did take clear stands, no matter how contentious. Even when it meant defying the current political winds, which often enough blew him over.
Recall for noble example Mike Huckabee’s proposal—made during a State of the State speech when everybody was listening—that the children of illegal immigrants in Arkansas be as eligible as all the rest of our Arkansas-educated kids for state-funded scholarships and in-state tuitions. As he put it, and this was back in 2005: “Do we want to change the future for these kids ? Then let’s give them the opportunity. Let’s not say that our doors are open but our opportunities are closed.”
Naturally, all this
courage and
high-mindedness won the Huck mainly a heapin’ pile of grief from both Democrats and Republicans. But that didn’t stop him; the bill he called for got through the Arkansas House. Unfortunately, it failed in the state Senate. But the state of Arkansas was better for the debate, which, alas, still sputters to this day.
Nothing keeps needless disputes alive like an absence of leadership. What’s Mike Beebe’s stand on the issue ? He says treating children of illegal immigrants like any other kids could violate the U. S. Constitution and federal immigration law. In place of leadership, in place of a clear stand, we get a legal problem. Or rather, a possible legal problem. Given the opportunity to lead, the governor would rather lawyerize. He doesn’t even call for private donations to help these kids—Arkansas kids—get an education.
When was the last time Mike Beebe took a stand that didn’t already have the support of every sane voter in the state ? Well, there was his push to raise the severance tax on natural gas. It was going to be a stroke of bold and courageous leadership, remember ? Announced with a bang, it was only a whimper by the time it finally materialized. Starting January 1, the final version will apply the full rate of 5 percent of the profits from the gas produced to just 220 of the state’s natural gas wells; the other 4, 000-odd wells will pay either 1. 25 or 1. 5 percent for the next two or three years, give or take a loophole.
By the time Mike Beebe takes a stand, an issue isn’t much of an issue any more. He tends to give direction much the way a weathervane does, indicating which way the wind is blowing rather than trying to direct it. Safe, all right. But ineffectual. Sure, the Guv may retain his popularity that way, i. e., by just playing it safe, but to what end other than re-election ? Is he aiming to be the state’s next David / Mark Pryor, whose major accomplishment is being well-liked ?
Wasn’t this the kind of thing a real, live working two-party system was going to fix by obliging leaders to take positions and be held accountable for them ? What ever happened to that two-party system, anyway ? It looks pretty much gone by now. No wonder our leaders can just slide.
FEEDBACK:
Something to say about this topic? Submit a Letter to the Editor online