Home » News » Is Huckabee for Real?

Is Huckabee for Real?

GOP Maverick Breaks with Republican Elites

Huckabee’s surge in Iowa and nationally sends shock waves through Republican establishments as a new editorial in the Washington Post by EJ Dionne describes the Washington establishment paranoia about Huckabee.

The Huckabee surge represents a break with what has been standard operating procedure within the GOP for more than a generation.

Romney appears to be the Republican Elite pick for the nomination, but his flip-flopping is legendary, as various reports demonstrate. He was pro-choice before he was against it (even donating money and appearing at a planned parenthood rally). He wanted to be a bigger supporter of gay rights than Ted Kennedy – until he changed his mind. He and his father marched with MLK – but only in his dreams. And on and on. (Cue the theme song from the old TV show flipper…)

Romney’s flip-flops make John Kerry look like Mount Rushmore. No matter what side of an issue you’re on, you can count on Romney to support it, and be against it. The country rejected John Kerry in part because of his infamous flip-flops – and Mr. Romney is orders of magnitude worse.

Romney’s supporters say he’s just changing positions as new information comes to light, and he’s growing as a candidate should. Really? Look at the latest flip-flop about how he was with his father when he marched with MLK; the only problem is it never happened, as reported by CNN.

During his recent speech on faith, the former Massachusetts governor told his audience how he had witnessed his father, George Romney, marching with the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr.
Romney repeated the claim that his father, who was the governor of Michigan from 1963 to 1969, had marched with King on NBC’s Meet the Press last weekend …
But Romney never did witness his father march with King, as the campaign now acknowledges.

He’s flipped on abortion, gay-rights, and now historical events.

Romney has his millions and the support of Republican Elites. As the SS Romney takes on water and begins to list to the side will he be able to patch the holes with his millions and buy the presidency? His attack ads against Huckabee have been labeled “Misleading and false” (see references); he’s gone negative in the campaign in part to stem Huckabee’s surge, and in part to take the focus off his infamous flips and flops.

“If it was all about the money”, Huckabee said recently, “then we might as well put the presidency up on eBay”

Yes, it does take money. But if money were all it took, Ron Paul would be surging as well. Yet for all his millions, people recognize him for what he is – a fringe candidate at best. Money is important, but so is connecting with voters. Right now, Huckabee is. Will Romney’s false attacks make that support waver? Who knows. But Romney has plenty of money to throw mud with, and at least some of it will stick. The question is, will Romney get more mud on himself or Huckabee? We’ll have to wait and see.

But all that is prologue to the main point (Romney’s flip-flops are well-known by now), as Dionne’s article continues.

On domestic policy, Douthat and Salam say, the Republican Party “isn’t just out of touch with the country as a whole, it’s out of touch with its own base”

It’s not just domestic policy, it’s foreign policy, immigration, and just about everything else. The Republicans have abandoned their core constituency, becoming the party of big government, big debt and big business. That’s what people are mad about, the abandonment by the Republicans of what they claim as their core values.

On NBC’s “Today” show Wednesday … He [Huckabee] insisted “The President ought to be a servant of the people and ought not to be elected to the ruling class”

This election could just be a referendum on both political parties, neither of which serve a major constituency anymore. Democrats pander to the small group of socialists pulling their strings (and paying for their campaigns), while Republicans worship at the alter of big business. Both parties have not only thrown the common man under the bus, but continue to jam the bus in reverse, back up to get another run and try again, all the while asking for votes and support so they can sell the common man down the river without a personal flotation device.

What’s interesting is the two surging candidates (Obama and Huckabee) aren’t running attack campaigns, or bowing to the alter of their party. Will the major parties be able to crush their wandering children, or will the people send a message to the major political parties – that Democrat and Republican politicians serve the people, not the other way around.

Is there any viable candidate willing to stand up and serve the people and not their puppet masters? Perhaps that’s partly responsible for Huckabee’s surge – he’s not the pick of the Republican party elites, and they’re paranoid about his possible victory.

… the rebellion he [Huckabee] is leading is a warning to Republicans. The faithful are restive, tired of being used, and no longer willing to do the bidding of a crowd that subordinates Main Street’s values to Wall Street’s interests.

In the National Review endorsement of Romney they said “A Republican party that abandoned either limited government or moral standards would be much diminished in the service it could give the country”.

Sorry guys, that ship left the pier a long time ago (moral standards and limited government). If you really believe Romney stands for core values of the people we’ve got a bridge to sell – Romney is the pick of the establishment, who desperately want to guarantee one of their own takes residence of the White House .

The Republican party hasn’t just abandoned it’s principles, it’s crushed them out like a cigarette.

In short, people are mad as hell, and they’re not going to take it anymore. Huckabee has a real chance at winning as his surge continues, and a Huckabee win would shatter the Republican elite mentality which abandoned the people it claims to represent, throwing them off the cliff but asking them to support the party before they hit the canyon floor.

Sorry guys, there’s a new player in town, and he’s not playing by your rules.

References:

Advertisements

8 Comments

  1. Colin says:

    Of all the GOP candidates, the case could be made that Huckabee is the least conservative. As governor, he raised taxes, bulked up the government by 20%, supported in-state tuition breaks for illegals, and currently supports a nationwide smoking ban. He wants to continue and extend the federal government role in education and healthcare. The only other real conservative besides Ron Paul, Tom Tancredo, called him out quite candidly on this on several occaisions.

    Here is Tancredo calling him out, and Huckabee demonstrating that a) he knows nothing about how technology is created b)that he’s not going to cut spending one iota: http://www.youtube.com/v/PBtTG7c5CUM&rel=1

    Here’s that “conservative” again claiming that the “government should be the market” when it comes to energy. Like any socialist, he thinks we all should be paying taxes to engage a giant federal project on energy: http://www.youtube.com/v/gkyuW0cJUVk&rel=1. Again, Tancredo comes in after and gives a true conservative answer.

    And Tancredo again, at 2:25, calls out Huckabee’s doublespeak on education: http://www.youtube.com/v/idB1y6NZsNc&rel=1

    Huckabee represents exactly what the GOP has been for the last ten years. Despite the image of change, wrapped up in motivational speaking cliches, Huckabee blatantly supports almost everything Bush II has done, and would merely expand it. So I suppose if people are fans of Bush, they would love Huckabee – he is everything Bush is and more, but his speaking skills are far superiour.

  2. eblack says:

    at this point, I really have no idea why there is still such doubt about huckabee.
    unless it comes out that he is really ted haggard or something, he will have the nomination.

    Mike Huckabee News – http://www.mikehuckabeenews.com

  3. The only other real conservative besides Ron Paul, Tom Tancredo,

    Ron Paul is *not* a conservative, he’s a Libertarian. Libertarians generally support legal prostitution, drug use, and isolationist foreign policy, which generally lines up with Ron Paul’s statements. This has been (and continues to be) discussed ad nauseum on other sites, so we won’t take the time here. It’s not the point of the article and should be a settled issue by now. We doubt Paul would deny being a Libertarian as he’s run under the Libertarian party before (1988 presidential election if we remember correctly).

    Ron Paul runs as a Republican for the same reason Kucinich runs as a Democrat. If they ran under the party they really belong in (Paul as a Libertarian, Kucinich as a Socialist), nobody would give them the time of day. Running as a fringe member of a major party gives them a platform for their ideas. There’s no problem with that, other than it can cause confusion.

    You can like Libertarian philosophy or not (everyone does what is right in their own eyes – you do your thing, I’ll do mine), but it’s not conservative. People become confused because it contains some conservative ideas, but diverges from conservatism far more than it agrees. (Legalized prostitution/drug use being the most popular to discuss). But again, there’s plenty of discussion elsewhere on this and it’s not really the topic at hand or the focus of the article.

    Tancredo was going to endorse Romney when he dropped out. That could be a political move, but if Paul and Tancredo are the only real conservatives, it’s strange Tancredo wouldn’t endorse Paul.

    Here’s that “conservative” again claiming that the “government should be the market” when it comes to energy. Like any socialist, he thinks we all should be paying taxes to engage a giant federal project on energy:

    Let’s go to the replay booth (the transcript from the Iowa debate) to see the section from which your quote likely comes.

    Washburn: Let me come back — let me come to a question that Iowans may not let you out of answering.

    Governor Huckabee, you’ve said you support increasing government mandates, requiring motorists to use 36 million gallons of biofuel by 2022, which is six times what we’re producing this year.

    Huckabee: And the reason that this issue ought to be important is because we don’t own this Earth; we are simply stewards of it, caretakers. And I know on a day like today, it’s hard to believe there is global warming, if anybody’s been in Iowa on a day like today.

    But climate change and who’s causing it is of less importance than what Senator McCain said. He exactly right. We have done no harm if we take better care of this planet and give it to our children with cleaner air, cleaner soil and cleaner water …

    You know who one of the biggest energy users is in the whole country? The United States government.

    If the government commits to being the primary user of alternative forms of energy, we have a market built in and, therefore — the big argument against having alternative energy is there’s no market for it. Let the government be a marketplace, and we’ll create the kind of demand that lowers the price rather than raises the price.

    He said “Let the government be a marketplace”, not “government should be the market”. “A” not “the”. Big difference right there, but some might argue it’s just semantics. But to your issue, did he advocate socialist energy policy? Again, from the replay booth:

    so-cial-ism (noun) Any of various theories or systems of social organization in which the means of producing and distributing goods is owned collectively or by a centralized government that often plans and controls the economy.

    We don’t see where Huckabee advocated government taking over ownership of the energy market, but people can read the transcript and decide for themselves.

    The debate discussion was how to get the country using alternative fuels and off oil. We’d likely all agree government should be a user of alternate energy – Huckabee said government should be a built-in market for alternative fuels, which solves a big problem with alternative fuel usage.

    The issue is a chicken and egg problem – no alternative fuel comes about without demand, and no demand without supply. Huckabee simply stated let the government be the first user of alternative fuel, and it will create the demand so industry can create the supply. Increased usage leads to production efficiencies and lower costs.

    That does several things:

    Helps the government wean off oil and onto alternative fuel.
    Creates demand so suppliers have incentive to create new alternative fuels.
    Creates infrastructure so alternative fuels become more available.

    You may not like the idea, but I’m hoping we all agree usage of alternative fuels should increase, and the government (as a huge user) has the most to gain from the transition. The question is how we should get there – you don’t like Huckabee’s proposal.

    Regarding Huckabee, people can read the transcript for themselves, visit his web site and see his positions and decide for themselves, just like they can for any other candidate (and they should).

    So we’ve addressed some of your concerns, but frankly it’s all off-topic and not the focal point of the article to begin with. Most of it has been discussed ad nauseum on countless web sites already, but since you brought it up, we responded to it.

    The actual point of the article is the Republican big business, big debt, big government coalition appears to be consolidating around Romney. Romney has millions and is falling in the polls. Huckabee has little money, and is surging (Obama is surging as well, but has money). The only reason we mentioned Paul is his money hasn’t been able to get him any traction, so money by itself isn’t enough.

    Obama and Huckabee are for some reason resonating with the public. Of course, as the campaign becomes nasty for both Republicans and Democrats, will this hold? Who knows.

    You’re anti-Huckabee, and that’s fine. The point isn’t so much about him, but the Republican party’s fear of his ability to win. Both Republicans and Democrats are fed-up with the parties throwing their constituents off the cliff, but still have the chutzpah to ask for support.

    That’s the real issue, and the point of the article.

  4. at this point, I really have no idea why there is still such doubt about huckabee.
    unless it comes out that he is really ted haggard or something, he will have the nomination.

    I wouldn’t be so bold as to say he’ll have the nomination. It’s still early and there’s lots to go. We’ll know more as the field narrows, but it’s far from certain. Polls are fluid things.

    $$$ will play a big issue. Besides that, he’ll have to withstand lots of negative campaigning.

  5. […] Election, Election, Election 2008, Huckabee, Mike Huckabee, Republicans Our recent article about the rise of Huckabee nationally, and the Republican party’s fear of his ability to win, is just the beginning of a political […]

  6. Colin says:

    [three paragraphs on ron paul]… But again, there’s plenty of discussion elsewhere on this and it’s not really the topic at hand or the focus of the article.

    Ron Paul isn’t the focus of the article, yet you saw the need to write three paragraphs about him before mentioning that “it’s not really the topic at hand.”

    Tancredo was going to endorse Romney when he dropped out. That could be a political move, but if Paul and Tancredo are the only real conservatives, it’s strange Tancredo wouldn’t endorse Paul.

    Tancredo got into the race not to restore the republican party (ala Paul) but to bring immigration to the forefront. The next best on immigration (in Tancredo’s view) is Romney. It has nothing to do with endorsing conservative credentials in general. Again, Tancredo (leaving Paul out) is the most principled conservative on there based on his record and his principles. There is no question.

    He said “Let the government be a marketplace”, not “government should be the market”. “A” not “the”. Big difference right there, but some might argue it’s just semantics.

    Not actually different in the slightest sense, especially in the sense where it matters most – that of principle. Making the government a marketplace, and according to the transcript (context no one should miss) the “primary user.” Huck is clearly indicating a socialistic policy based on both the context and the direct phrase.

    so-cial-ism (noun) Any of various theories or systems of social organization in which the means of producing and distributing goods is owned collectively or by a centralized government that often plans and controls the economy.

    We don’t see where Huckabee advocated government taking over ownership of the energy market, but people can read the transcript and decide for themselves.

    He advocated it in the statement above. Defining such a broad term with a single sentence emphasizing the most narrow and ideological interpretation and claiming (in the face of modern history and application of the term) that it is therefore not valid is logically fallacious. It takes more work and thought, but referencing the wiki entry is more relevant. For example, fascist socialism, which has been the modern behavior that has defined the term (late 19th, 20th century Germany, Italy, Spain in the 40’s, United States in the 30s and 40s, etc…) maintains the illusion of private control and property, while the state grants monopolies or restricts the marketplace. What Huckabee is describing is precisely socialism – while he’s not advocating a worker takeover, it is still socialism in theory and practice. Huckabee (who does, ironically, have the backing of the most socialist groups in the country [and this is the narrow definition this time] – Unions) is saying that the government should take people’s money (tax it, borrow it, or inflate it), give it to alternative energy companies so as to “create a market” by government force. This is socialism, despite that fact that it doesn’t fit in with our nice fairy-tale world where democrats are evil socialists and republicans are heroic constitutionalists.

    The debate discussion was how to get the country using alternative fuels and off oil. We’d likely all agree government should be a user of alternate energy – Huckabee said government should be a built-in market for alternative fuels, which solves a big problem with alternative fuel usage.

    The issue is a chicken and egg problem – no alternative fuel comes about without demand, and no demand without supply. Huckabee simply stated let the government be the first user of alternative fuel, and it will create the demand so industry can create the supply. Increased usage leads to production efficiencies and lower costs.

    What is advocated above is socialism. It is the government manipulating the market through subsidies and taxes (or borrowing and inflation). This is a standard Keynesian, FDResque, special-interest line that is ultimately meant to justify taking from hardworking Americans to prop up an industry that is inefficient and can’t make it in the marketplace. It is welfare of the worst kind – because it takes from the poor and middle class and gives to businessmen and bureaucrats. It takes from Americans making $40,000 a year, to bail out inefficient businessmen who have successfully lobbied politicians to do what they could never accomplish in an open and free marketplace. That is socialism.

    Again, the principle is what is socialist here. The practical step is quite small, especially considering the amount of socialism Americans have come to tolerate (and demand in many cases), but at it’s very root, the idea that government can somehow “stimulate the economy” comes right out of the socialist handbook. Just because we’ve been the frog in the gradually hotter pot doesn’t make “turning up” the socialism less evil.

    We’ll look at the pragmatics:

    Helps the government wean off oil and onto alternative fuel.
    Creates demand so suppliers have incentive to create new alternative fuels.
    Creates infrastructure so alternative fuels become more available.

    Actually, and this is a major reason that alternative fuels can’t make it in the market – they are less efficient on the aggregate! They may, in some special (and politically obvious or advantageous area – global warming, energy independence, gas prices) do good, but overall they are still worse. But again, this is the practical mechanics of how special interest politics comes about. Thus, if the government moved over to alternative energy, it would use more money, more resources and ultimately cost more than current energy does. It would take more taxes, more borrowing, more debt and more inflation to do it. It has higher up front costs and less of a return on investment in the long run.

    The “demand” created is non-market demand. That is – demand out of thin air. This is part of the Keynesian myth – that somehow consumption will drive the economy, when it has been proven both empirically and abstractly (most eloquently by Milton Friedman and other republican economists) that production is required before distribution (and consumption) can occur.

    Unintended consequences aside, the very premise of creating demand by government fiat, declares that government planners and bureaucrats can make better energy decisions than consumers, producers and industry – all of whom have much more of an incentive for efficiency. Tancredo critiqued this beautifully in the debate.

    The infrastructure argument is a fallacious one as well. The fact is, industry is all too ready to build infrastructure when it actually has a benefit to consumers. The energy industry especially does this currently. Alternative energy’s infrastructure is too costly and inefficient to build. Like everything else government does, their infrastructure (as in Huckabee’s “government market” solution) would likely cost even more than the private infrastructure – it would be mired in government regulations and restrictions and would cause much more hassle than it would ever help.

    You may not like the idea, but I’m hoping we all agree usage of alternative fuels should increase, and the government (as a huge user) has the most to gain from the transition. The question is how we should get there – you don’t like Huckabee’s proposal.

    I could care less what “kind” of energy is used – I’m not into supporting special interests. What I want is what all conservatives want – a free market, because it is the best means of both producing and distributing goods, including energy. This is where innovation comes from – not government. I don’t like Huckabee’s proposal because he thinks the government should bring it about (and in naivety of history and economics, thinks it can!) and, as a conservative, I am fundamentally against socialism and increasing government power.

    Regarding Huckabee, people can read the transcript for themselves, visit his web site and see his positions and decide for themselves, just like they can for any other candidate (and they should).

    Huckabee only emphasizes his big government position on his site. He laments that “federal spending for energy research and development is only 40% of what it was in 1979” and implies that because the government isn’t spending more that we are “so pathetically behind the curve right now.” Even the democrats are not advocating for such big government spending projects and free-market restrictions!

    The actual point of the article is the Republican big business, big debt, big government coalition appears to be consolidating around Romney. Romney has millions and is falling in the polls. Huckabee has little money, and is surging (Obama is surging as well, but has money). The only reason we mentioned Paul is his money hasn’t been able to get him any traction, so money by itself isn’t enough.

    Obama and Huckabee are for some reason resonating with the public. Of course, as the campaign becomes nasty for both Republicans and Democrats, will this hold? Who knows.

    They are resonating with the public because they are the two biggest demagogues in the election. They are the definition of populists – more about speaking with emotion and charisma, in vague generalities and platitudes, than actual plans and carefully thought out leadership. I’ve heard Huckabee make more wordplays like “weapons of mass instruction” and “communicator in chief” than I have heard him define practical, realistic policies in education, healthcare, economics and foreign policy. And he is wildly applauded for it by the masses in the same way that American Idol is applauded.

    Perhaps Iowa loves Romney, Obama and Huckabee the most because they have promised the biggest government in terms of farm subsidies. I think it has much less to do with this idea of Huckabee as “a break with what has been standard operating procedure within the GOP” and much more to do with the fact that he is the leading voice for the people “voting themselves the treasury.”

  7. … the government should take people’s money (tax it, borrow it, or inflate it), give it to alternative energy companies so as to “create a market” … It is the government manipulating the market through subsidies and taxes (or borrowing and inflation). This is a standard Keynesian, FDResque, special-interest line that is ultimately meant to justify taking from hardworking Americans to prop up an industry that is inefficient and can’t make it in the marketplace. It is welfare of the worst kind – because it takes from the poor and middle class and gives to businessmen and bureaucrats.. The “demand” created is non-market demand. That is – demand out of thin air.

    Again, here’s the snippet which causes you problems (full quote from the debate is in a previous comment):

    … the big argument against having alternative energy is there’s no market for it. Let the government be a marketplace, and we’ll create the kind of demand that lowers the price rather than raises the price.

    He never said anything about taxes or subsidies there, and definitely never said take taxpayer money and give it to energy companies. You may be inferring your conclusion for other reasons, but it’s not in the debate quote under discussion.

    In any event, this will be our last comment on this issue as this is quickly becoming a yes-it-is no-it’s-not discussion which has little value. People can read your opinion and the transcript and decide for themselves – the topic is well-covered.

    In the debate quote in question he never advocated government takeover of energy (socialism), or transfer of tax dollars to them, or subsidies for them (using your definition of socialism). You see that he did. We’ll just disagree and move on.

    The fact is, industry is all too ready to build infrastructure when it actually has a benefit to consumers

    Not necessarily true – they build it when it has a profit, not necessarily a benefit to consumers. Companies primary objective is profit, not benefiting people. They’ll do things if it serves their primary objective – profit.

    If you want profits, you’ll provide what consumers want. But the converse is not true – if you provide what consumers want you’ll get profit. And since companies only concern is profit and shareholder value, it’s why industry doesn’t always provide services when it’s a benefit to people.

    Try getting broadband in a sparsely populated area. Benefit to you, low or no profit to the company. Guess what wins?

  8. Colin says:

    Again, here’s the snippet which causes you problems (full quote from the debate is in a previous comment):

    … the big argument against having alternative energy is there’s no market for it. Let the government be a marketplace, and we’ll create the kind of demand that lowers the price rather than raises the price.

    He never said anything about taxes or subsidies there, and definitely never said take taxpayer money and give it to energy companies. You may be inferring your conclusion for other reasons, but it’s not in the debate quote under discussion.

    In the debate quote in question he never advocated government takeover of energy (socialism), or transfer of tax dollars to them, or subsidies for them (using your definition of socialism). You see that he did. We’ll just disagree and move on.

    Government programs are not free. They must be paid for either by taxes, borrowing, or printing money – there is no other way around it. No matter how vague the proposal, it must be paid for in those ways. Just because he doesn’t say this explicitly does not change the fact that it is inherent in the proposal. Hillary (to my knowledge) has never mentioned how she intends to pay for Universal Healthcare – this doesn’t stop conservatives (and rightly so) from declaring that this will have to be paid for through taxes or borrowing.

    But this just proves my point about Huckabee in general having no substance to what he is saying – either he has no idea of this most basic reality of government programs or he is just spouting off vague populist rhetoric to gain votes – utopian plan to come later of course. This is a populist and a demagogue in the most narrow definition. Electing such an ignorant or short-sighted man would (and I don’t mean that as an insult to him but merely as a practical definition) be devastaing on the scale of Jimmy Carter (foreign Policy) or Richard Nixon (economic policy) who both were the same kind of men (and the reason for the return to more constitutional, conservative values with Regan).

    Not necessarily true – they build it when it has a profit, not necessarily a benefit to consumers. Companies primary objective is profit, not benefiting people. They’ll do things if it serves their primary objective – profit.

    I’m genuninely not trying to be flippant here, but economics 101 is the invisible hand and Adam Smith:

    As every individual, therefore, endeavors as much as he can both to employ his capital in the support of domestic industry, and so to direct that industry that its produce may be of the greatest value; every individual necessarily labors to render the annual revenue of the society as great as he can. He generally, indeed, neither intends to promote the public interest, nor knows how much he is promoting it. By preferring the support of domestic to that of foreign industry, he intends only his own security; and by directing that industry in such a manner as its produce may be of the greatest value, he intends only his own gain, and he is in this, as in many other cases, led by an invisible hand to promote an end which was no part of his intention.

    The founders so believed in, and our constitution was written with, the full knowledge that this is what makes free markets work. Milton Friedman has since expanded on this. Heck, even John Stossel’s special, “Greed” has been an excellent commentary on this most basic of conservative principles.

    If you want profits, you’ll provide what consumers want. But the converse is not true – if you provide what consumers want you’ll get profit. And since companies only concern is profit and shareholder value, it’s why industry doesn’t always provide services when it’s a benefit to people.

    Yes, this is always true. And it can be shown with your example below rather simply, in a second. However, I want to first clarify that, of course, industry is not a charity service and it will not simply start building infrastructure out of goodwill. However, if people genuinely do want a service (and do not feel entitled to a free or subsidized service as in the case of government) then they will pay for it. A company will not (and cannot) provide a service without profit. So in that sense, it is always true that a company will profit by providing what consumers want. Moreover, they must not just provide what they want, but how they want it, where they want it and so on. If they do this, they will profit – every time. Naturally, This presumes that “want” is more than “wouldn’t it be nice if” and is actual market demand – that is they will pay for it.

    All of that is moot however, if you take the position that businesses should be operating as charities – in which case, I would say that the inherent evil nature of man renders that a utopian pipe-dream. But as long as consumers actually demand something, a company will come in to provide it – every single time.

    Try getting broadband in a sparsely populated area. Benefit to you, low or no profit to the company. Guess what wins?

    The reason broadband doesn’t come to sparsely populated areas is because people actually don’t want it. They are not willing to pay the higher rates and start-up costs in building infrastructure to low-use, low-traffic areas. This is like complaining that there isn’t a six-lane interstate highway through a 3,000 person town – it would be a benefit. But taxpayers would never fund such a project – they would rather buy food, clothes, cable and gas with their money. In the same way, rural folk’s privacy, extra space, quiet and the other amenities of small town life aren’t free – they have an exactly inverse disadvantage of less access, more travel and more expensive infrastructure. But if they want it bad enough, they can get it – but expecting companies to just build infrastructure out of charity ignores both human nature and I think ethics – because it assumes that people are entitled to broadband at a cheaper than cost price.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: