The tragic murders of four policeman in Washington State, quickly turned into a political story when it was discovered that former governor and Republican presidential candidate Mike Huckabee had previously commuted the sentence of the gunman, making him eligible for parole.
Normally, I wouldn’t have much to say on such story. But because I have some familiarity with the backstory—I worked for a brief time for the Huckabee campaign—and because it has implications for the role of religion in politics, I thought it might be worth sharing my perspective.
Reflections on a politician by former campaign staffers should always be taken cum grano salis. This is no exception. While I’m still a fan of the governor I don’t believe he—nor anyone else from the 2008 primary season (from Palin to Romney to Giuliani to Paul)—has any chance of ever becoming President. Because of this, I don’t feel the need to either defend or condemn him. While the tragic chain of events that were set in place by his signing commutations are not entirely—or even primarily—the fault of the governor, he must bear a sufficient measure of responsibility.
What follows may appear to be sympathetic, but I hope that it is simply a realistic assessment.
In the fall of 2007 I was hired by the Huckabee for President campaign to be the Director of Rapid Response. After arriving in Little Rock, though, I learned that the Director of Research had fallen ill and that since there was a general overlap in the two areas, I would also be taking over his duties as well.
Research on a campaign generally entails fact-checking the claims made in political ads and speeches and preparing any necessary data for debates. In many campaigns, though, it also includes performing opposition research on one’s opponents.
Because the governor did not believe in digging up dirt on the other movie downloads Republican challengers, my primary task was to preemptively collect opposition research on him and his family. Fortunately, my predecessor had already prepared thousands of pages of press clippings and briefing sheets on every aspect of the governor’s past record that would come under scrutiny.
Initially, I was a bit uncomfortable with this role. But, to my surprise, no one on the campaign ever asked me to spin the press. My task was simply to provide the relevant context for any potential scandal and allow the facts to speak for themselves. Perhaps it was a sign of the naïveté of me and the other staff that we believed this would be in any way sufficient.
As I quickly learned, no one on either side of the issue much cared about the facts. The only question asked either by the governor’s supporters or detractors was, “How would this hurt the governor’s prospects?” Having already made up their minds about his fitness for the Presidency, almost no one much cared about the details of any particular controversy. (No one, at least, on our side. To my surprise, the dreaded “mainstream media” seemed to be the only outlets that were interested in getting the full story. Conservative media and bloggers had almost no interest in getting the full story.)
This seemed especially true on the issue of clemency, commutations, and pardons. Few people understood the difference between these legal terms or the way in which Arkansas’ legal system required an unusual level of involvement in these matters by the movie downloads governor’s office. It took me several weeks—and many late-night reading sessions—to even begin to grasp the complexity of the issues enough to form my own judgment about the prudence of the decisions.
After reviewing hundreds of cases and interviewing numerous people involved in the process, I concluded to my own satisfaction that the governor’s actions and judgment were generally defensible. Yet there remained about a half-dozen situations in which even after reviewing all of the information I was unpersuaded that justice had been served. Although I was sympathetic with some of the justifications offered for making the decisions, I found them inadequate for a number of reasons.
For example, in a number of the cases—and almost always in the most controversial requests for commutation—there was sense that the petitioners were attempting to redress injustices committed by the “Clinton machine.” The disdain for Bill and Hillary Clinton and their associates that peaked among conservatives in the early 1990s remains palpable among Republicans in Arkansas. Many of the petitioners and supporters of the commutations and pardons were truly convinced that they were simply rectifying injustices committed by the former Democratic governor and his cronies. (This was especially true in the infamous Wayne DuMond case where the victim was a second cousin of Bill Clinton.)
If you believe that the Clintons possess near mystical powers to control an entire state, then you might find this way of thinking persuasive. I do not. Yet I’m convinced that had it not been for abject hatred of the Clintons many of these cases would never have been considered worthy of the governor’s attention.
But while this may partially explain the reason these cases came to the governor’s desk, it doesn’t explain why Huckabee supported them. Huckabee, a savvy politician, was fully aware of both the power and limitations of the Clinton network. He possessed an exceedingly realistic view of their abilities and flaws. Unfortunately, he often had a blind spot that prevented him from seeing his own limitation.
For instance, the politically prudent tactic would have been to simply refuse to grant any leniency—ever. Other governors with their sights set on higher offices had learned that doing nothing—even to correct obvious instances of injustice—was unlikely to cause any long-term political damage. Keeping an innocent man in prison is less harmful to an ambitious politician than freeing someone who may commit other crimes.
Huckabee would certainly discover this political reality the hard way. Initially, I chalked it up solely to extraordinary political courage. Later, I tempered this view when I realized that this courage was mixed with a large dose of cluelessness. The governor seemed genuinely surprised that he was held responsible for the criminal acts committed by those whose sentences he had commuted as governor. It was as if he believed that simply having noble intentions and a willingness to make tough decisions would provide political cover. The notion that he should be accountable for future crimes committed by these men seemed as foreign to him as the idea that he should refuse all leniency.
His naivete about how his actions would be judged was compounded by his own belief in the nobleness of his motives. Huckabee was—and likely remains—a true believer in the concept of restorative justice. Like many politicians who latch onto ideas that support their worldview, however, he was enthusiastic about the general theory while failing to grasp the nuances of its application.
Judging from the records, the governor also seemed to put a lot of weight on conversion stories—a common trait among evangelicals, who believe the gospel is sufficient for restoration and redemption of character. The opinion of clergy appears to have carried a great deal of weight in the decision-making process. As journalist Marc Ambinger wrote about the DuMond case in 2007:
Clearly, Huckabee misjudged the character of DuMond. Or maybe he didn’t.
DuMond claimed he had found God; he was a model prisoner; he gave the state no reason to believe that the prison experience wasn’t reforming; there weren’t any signs that DuMond had any intention of offending again.
What Huckabee misjudged is his ability to judge the character of a convicted murderer and rapists, a lapse out of a character for a pastor who believes in the sinful nature of an — or a lapse in character for a pastor who believes in redemption. DuMond may have been predisposed to violence, or some external event had a triggering effect on his violent behavior. In any event, we’re talking here about criminology and psychology, domains that Huckabee had no expertise in, and domains that, arguably, politicians ought to keep at brain’s length.
Ironically, what makes Huckabee such an appealing Presidential candidate—his empathy for all people and genuine belief in the individual—is also the trait that will prevent him from ever reaching the White House. His experiences and intuitions that served him well as a minister of the gospel were not always applicable in his role as governor of a state. The unfortunate reality is that for politicians, unlike pastors, there are limits to compassion.
November 30th, 2009 | 1:32 pm
[...] Joe Carter, who worked for Huckabee’s presidential campaign, has an excellent essay on why Huckabee’s personal strength of charitable action is the reason he will never be [...]
November 30th, 2009 | 1:33 pm
This is the problem with rehabilitative justice. There is no measure for rehabilitation. If it happens to happen, great, but we should not change the punishment based on how sweet and shiny somebody looks after a year in jail. Deterrence is also bunk. If our reason for punishing someone is to deter others, than it does not even matter if a man is innocent of a crime, because we can still punish him and get the desired effect – others will be less likely to think about committing a crime because they might be punished. Retribution must be the only true reasoning behind punishment. If your goal is to give someone what they deserve for what they did, the innocent wont be in jail (barring screw-ups) and the guilty/dangerous will, every time they commit a crime. All will get exactly what they deserve. NO EXCEPTIONS. Four men are dead because of “rehabilitation” and an exception because a man was a YOUNG man when he began displaying his psychotic, murderous side.
November 30th, 2009 | 2:15 pm
[...] This post was mentioned on Twitter by Phyllis Shelton, TWT POLITICIAN. TWT POLITICIAN said: Huckabee and the Limits of Compassion: Like many politicians who latch onto ideas that support their worldview,.. http://bit.ly/8YRj52 [...]
November 30th, 2009 | 2:16 pm
Joe -
I think you should have waited until the end of your article before stating, “I don’t believe he—nor anyone else from the 2008 primary season (from Palin to Romney to Giuliani to Paul)—has any chance of ever becoming President. “.
It’s difficult to find any credibility at all in what you had to say thereafter, since you decided to unveil your true colors from the start.
November 30th, 2009 | 2:23 pm
CF It’s difficult to find any credibility at all in what you had to say thereafter, since you decided to unveil your true colors from the start.
How does that speak to my credibility? It’s simply an observation (shared by many people when they are honest) that since all of the candidates from that season have large segments of the GOP who absolutely refuse to support their nomination, none of them can be President.
McCain slipped into the nomination because he was not Huckabee, Romney, or Giuliani (Palin got the VP slot for much the same reason).
If you disagree, I’d love to hear who you think has a chance.
November 30th, 2009 | 2:31 pm
Social comments and analytics for this post…
This post was mentioned on Twitter by TWT POLITICIAN: Huckabee and the Limits of Compassion: Like many politicians who latch onto ideas that support their worldview,.. http://bit.ly/8YRj52…
November 30th, 2009 | 2:57 pm
[...] Carter, who briefly worked for the Huckabee campaign, has some interesting thoughts on the murder of four policeman in Washington State. Posted in Politics | No Comments » [...]
November 30th, 2009 | 3:03 pm
[...] II – Joe Carter, director of research for Huckabee for President shares some interesting insight on the clemency issue. The whole thing is worth a read but here are some highlights… After [...]
November 30th, 2009 | 3:11 pm
[...] hard to fault a man for showing mercy but for public officials there are limits to compassion. Huckabee should man up and accept his share of [...]
November 30th, 2009 | 3:32 pm
[...] Rapid Response for the 2008 campaign has written an excellent editorial on why the former Arkansas Governor will never be President. This seemed especially true on the issue of clemency, commutations, and pardons. Few people [...]
November 30th, 2009 | 5:34 pm
For what it’s worth, I thought your remarks on electability of Mr. Huckabee and others merely testified that you had no axes to grind about his prospects by telling your story.
November 30th, 2009 | 6:45 pm
Joe, my take was the same as that of CF. Given your subsequent response indicating surprise that someone would question your credibility, it seems that you have fallen victim to the same naivete/narcissism complex for which you criticize Huckabee.
For those of us who don’t know you (at all), to have the first thing you say to us be that you don’t think A, B or C will become President, and you then follow that with an indictment of either A, B or C, it automatically causes the (perhaps jaded) reader to infer that you potentially have a motivation to discount/discredit A, B or C as a presidential candidate, leading the reader to discount your indictment. It’s really pretty simple. It’s also hard to believe that someone who worked in a political campaign doesn’t understand it.
November 30th, 2009 | 7:36 pm
Mike Huckabee is a bigot, nothing else. You should be ashamed to associate with an anti-Mormon, big government fanatic like Mike. He is a puke who will never be anything but a nuisance to honest Americans.
November 30th, 2009 | 8:14 pm
j williie and you then follow that with an indictment of either A, B or C, it automatically causes the (perhaps jaded) reader to infer that you potentially have a motivation to discount/discredit A, B or C as a presidential candidate, leading the reader to discount your indictment.
I don’t understand what you are saying. While I said that I don’t think any of the 2008 candidates have a chance to be President (ever) I only made an “indictment” against one: Huckabee. Is that who you meant?
November 30th, 2009 | 9:44 pm
[...] a preacher. I sincerely do not mean any disrespect in that, but it is what it is. Carter said: Ironically, what makes Huckabee such an appealing Presidential candidate—his empathy for all [...]
November 30th, 2009 | 10:09 pm
Hi Joe,
I watched your transformation from a FredHead to a Huckanut on Evangelical Outpost. You made a good decision back then.
This Clemmons case will blow over in a few weeks. Huck is entirely reasonable for commuting the 60-year sentence of a minor whose main offense was armed robbery. You think Obama would attack Huck for performing this act? Huck had less justification with regards to the Dumond case.
If you are troubled with the 1000 pardons of Huck, recall that Reagan also doled out a ton of pardons during his political career (about 1000). Should this have disqualified Reagan? No.
Huck will be the Teflon candidate.
November 30th, 2009 | 10:39 pm
I agree with Frances M. The purpose of punishment is retribution. The death penalty must always be available for certain terrible crimes. A society that prohibits the death penalty is a society that no longer cares about justice.
December 1st, 2009 | 9:40 am
I don’t believe that my wife has any chance of being elected President of the United States in 2012.
Does this mean that I have a predisposition against her?
December 1st, 2009 | 9:58 am
[...] nomination in 2012. Joe Carter, who worked on the governor’s campaign, has written a great post on Huckabee’s views on rehabilitation. A telling [...]
December 1st, 2009 | 10:09 am
Mental illness is the elephant in the living room of criminal justice – understandably so. Psychiatric disorders originating in brain chemistry result in profoundly disordered thinking. The afflicted person attempting to make sense of his or her experiences is dealing with wildly distorted data and therefore reaches distorted conclusions but is still capable in many cases of formulating a logical sequence of actions. Disaster often follows as night follows day. Kindness consists in providing treatment while protecting the sufferer from himself or herself. The John Salvi case in Boston (in which a mentally ill man murdered workers at an abortion clinic) is a perfect example. Clear evidence existed that Mr. Salvi was, so to speak, already confined in a horrible fortress – that of schizophrenia. He was placed in a jail cell (retrtibution) rather than a hospital for the criminally insane (mercy) and obligingly committed suicide. Again, young people afflicted with serious mental illness need treatment and protective custody. Disordered behavior should be attended to with all possible seriousness long before it has a chance to play out as it did in this tragic case.
December 1st, 2009 | 10:30 am
Great post, and I think your criticism of Huckabee is pretty damning. That said, while the consequences of Clemmons’ release are undoubtedly tragic, is this case the best example of a faulty decision-making process? From what I gathered at Politico, Clemmons was 18 when he was sentenced to 60 years for burglary and theft. Barring special circumstances, that sounds awfully excessive.
December 1st, 2009 | 11:51 am
[...] 2008 campaign, Joe Carter, confirms our view of him. Slightly to our surprise we found this at First Things, a Christian site: The tragic murders of four policeman in Washington State, [...]
December 1st, 2009 | 1:00 pm
Joe – thanks for this insightful piece. I think your most poignant piece of analysis is found in your last two sentences.
“His experiences and intuitions that served him well as a minister of the gospel were not always applicable in his role as governor of a state. The unfortunate reality is that for politicians, unlike pastors, there are limits to compassion.”
As a Christian influenced by Luther’s thoughts on the Two Kingdoms and Vocation – I think Huckabee is not adequately embracing the tension that comes as Christians struggle to live between this age and the age to come.
While Huck’s decision in this case could be defended as reasonable (given the circumstances of the case) – the overall tenor of his approach to “restorative justice” does not adequately consider the people whom God has called him to serve (the Citizens under his authority). It seems to me to be an example of his confusing his calling in God’s right-hand Kingdom (as a minister of the gospel) with his calling in God’s left-hand Kingdom (as Governor of the State). I agree that Huck’s confusion in his calling could have potentially devestating consequences if he ever ascended to the White House.
December 1st, 2009 | 1:43 pm
[...] in my post on Mike Huckabee and commutations, I wrote: [T]he politically prudent tactic would have been to simply refuse to grant any leniency—ever. [...]
December 1st, 2009 | 2:04 pm
It’s really sad to hear that what was sold as Christian charity was really yet another incarnation of Clinton hatred.
I guess that’s a pretty fair representation of what Christianity means to hardcore Republicans, at least.
December 1st, 2009 | 2:12 pm
[...] Joe Carter at First Things Possibly related posts: (automatically generated)Expand Your Horizons with Dr. Seuss in TranslationWash. shooting re-opens Huckabee’s clemency record – AP [...]
December 1st, 2009 | 2:42 pm
[...] — is also the trait that will prevent him from ever reaching the White House,” Carter wrote in a blog post [...]
December 1st, 2009 | 2:42 pm
[...] — is also the trait that will prevent him from ever reaching the White House,” Carter wrote in a blog post [...]
December 1st, 2009 | 4:18 pm
I am, on the whole, in favour of a pardon/clemency role for a governor in American states largely because the scope for injustices has been so convincingly demonstrated.
That said, I have never understood the “model prisoner” rationale which is so dear to the hearts of the rehabilitationists. To me it was often a tacit admission (of which they were blissfully unaware) that the citizen in question was wholly incapable of behaving themselves unless surrounded by twenty-foot walls, razor wire and heavily armed guards.
The fact that a man behaves himself when the alternatives are getting shivved by a cellmate or spending months in solitary or getting shot by a guard is not a paean to his character. It’s why I never had much patience for those complaining of “warehousing criminals”. Where do you want them? In the warehouse or on the street?
I’m NOT a Huckabee fan. I think that he’s a theocrat who is wholly disinterested in listening to or caring about people who don’t fit within his frame of what’s righteous. However, I fail to see how he erred here. He commuted a sentence for from 108 years to 57 years on charges where the prisoner had already served 11 years and where the parole board made the decision on whether or not to release him.
Wayne Dumond, on the other hand….
December 1st, 2009 | 5:00 pm
“Ironically, what makes Huckabee such an appealing Presidential candidate—his empathy for all people and genuine belief in the individual—is also the trait that will prevent him from ever reaching the White House.”
How and why is it possible for any person claiming “empathy for all people” to cloak fear, hatred, and bigotry towards others who don’t share either their religion, nationality, sexual preference or gender in the guise of “religious freedom?”
December 1st, 2009 | 5:35 pm
I think it is unfair that the author places Christian charity or Clinton bashing as Huckabee’s motivations in the clemency decision. Arkansas law clearly lays out the Governors role in such cases and it involves very little room for going against the parole boards decision. As Huck has stated this is truly a miscarriage of justice due to the AK laws, and in this case WA law as well. In AK it is not the Gov’s job to review the thousands of requests the board makes, it is only the Gov’s job to keep tabs on the board so that it isn’t biased or corrupt.
December 1st, 2009 | 5:35 pm
Joe – I’ve been looking for you since you left Evangelical Outpost (not terribly hard, but still) and just figured out that you’re still blogging. Glad to see it!
You did great work for Huckabee back in 07, even though I was a Romney fan. Hope all is well.
Brian
December 1st, 2009 | 6:59 pm
[...] a governor is a tough job. Mike Huckabee is taking all sorts of heat for his decision to commute the sentence of Maurice Clemmons who shot and killed four police [...]
December 1st, 2009 | 7:58 pm
[...] on December 1, 2009 Being a governor is a tough job. Mike Huckabee is taking all sorts of heat for his decision to commute the sentence of Maurice Clemmons who shot and killed four police [...]
December 2nd, 2009 | 4:55 am
[...] pioneering Christian blogger Joe Carter, who now blogs for First Things, served on Huckabee’s staff during his presidential campaign. He thinks highly of Governor [...]
December 2nd, 2009 | 9:51 am
“Judging from the records, the governor also seemed to put a lot of weight on conversion stories—a common trait among evangelicals, who believe the gospel is sufficient for restoration and redemption of character.”
Very astute. We evangelicals are suckers for redemption stories. It is good that we believe in miracles. The problem is that the dominant belief in America is no longer the Puritan Total Depravity but the Methodist Moral Perfectibility, even though (or perhaps *because*) the pastors don’t teach theology to their flocks. Thus, we have the idea that church people don’t sin— at least not most church people— reinforced by nobody wanting to admit that they sin. Just one step further, and we have the idea that somebody who has converted will stop sinning.
And of course we’re rather gullible too, easily satisfied with words. We trust someone who says he’s changed and become a slave of Jesus even if he’s living with his girlfriend, shirking on child-support payments to his ex-wife, and selling pornography at the gas station where he works. It isn’t considered polite to question whether someone else’s faith is true.
December 2nd, 2009 | 2:19 pm
[...] Carter, in his excellent post about Huckabee muses that the governor was naieve. Maybe so, but isn’t Christianity at its root somewhat [...]
December 2nd, 2009 | 4:00 pm
[...] affect his approach to each case? I’m not sure he has any regrets, although some of his most eloquent and devoted supporters clearly [...]
December 2nd, 2009 | 11:36 pm
Joe,
I do not agree with you. That is my bias.
Why couldn’t Mike Huckabee be President of America?
First of all, Governor Mike Huckabee is a once in a lifetime politician. Mike is a breath of fresh air among the field of politicians. In my opinion, Mike has the unique ability to become one of the most outstanding Presidents of the 21st Century. His qualifications and character are without question. Polls reveal that Americans prefer him and rank him as the leading potential candidate for the 2012 election this early in the race before he has even announce his willingness to run.
Voters have long sought out a person with whom they could identify. Mike qualifies as a unique presidential candidate because he has many desirable qualities. He is personable, openly honest, intelligent, articulate, trustworthy, well-informed, and one who is willing to accept responsibility for his actions – both the good and the bad. Mike also has a good track record of being a favorite Governor of Arkansas with many outstanding accomplishments.
Mike has openly revealed the facts about his part in the Maurice Clemmons’ case. Mike was asked by the parole board and the sentencing judge to help them reduce the sentence from the 108 years to 48 so he would be eligible for parole. Mike said he agreed to help this young teenager.
His openness to reveal the facts and take full responsibility for his decisions – even those that he wishes he had not made – is uniquely refreshing and uncommon among the field of politicians. In fact, it is a rare quality.
It’s clear that the Democrats are trying to make a political issue out of the Clemmons’ case. The facts do not bear out their concerns. Mike Huckabee has not hidden any fact or detail. He has expressed his regret at the chain of events that resulted in the execution style killing of four police officers. Because Mike has been open accepting of his responsibility, the matter should be closed.
America would do well if we held those who failed to file charges against Maurice Clemmons for the violent crimes that he committed in Washington State. We need to hold Maurice Clemmons responsible for the killings. It would be a welcome change to our attitudes that we could begin holding each person responsible for their own actions.
By the way, we have never in the history of America elected a President on the basis of his religion. Mike’s religion may define him, but it does not disqualify him.
America will gladly welcome Mike as a very desirable presidential candidate.
December 3rd, 2009 | 2:59 am
I’m sure former US president Michael Dukakis will be happy to hear from various commenters above how this incident will in no way impede Mike Huckabee’s political career.
December 3rd, 2009 | 3:25 pm
[...] Carter, the former research director of his presidential campaign, wrote for First Things that “His naivete about how his actions would be judged was compounded by his own belief in [...]
December 14th, 2009 | 6:30 am
[...] to emphasize its folly. Joe Carter, who handled rapid-response for Huckabee’s 2008 campaign, acknowledged that the “prudent tactic would have been to simply refuse to grant any leniency — [...]
December 14th, 2009 | 5:40 pm
[...] I was one of those who made this very claim. Ross quoting my blog post on Huckabee in which I said, “the “prudent tactic would have been to simply refuse to grant any [...]
December 22nd, 2009 | 8:16 am
[...] When a 74-year-old Wal-Mart greet is punched in the kisser. When Mike Huckabee doesn’t stand a chance of being prezdent because he’s too nice a guy. [...]
Links
Blogs
Find Us
Contact