Another Southern Baptist President? James A. Davids J.D. Duke University School of Law President-Elect, Christian Legal Society Assistant Dean, Robertson School of Government, Regent University February 4, 2008

With Mike Huckabee now a first tier candidate vying for the Republican nomination, it is time to consider whether the Incredible Huck’s governing style will mimic the last two Southern Baptists to occupy the Oval Office.  The similarities between these three Southerners are, of course, obvious.  Jimmy Carter, Bill Clinton, and Chuck Norris’ good friend were all born and raised in the South, all three were governors of Southern states, all three are husbands of one wife, all are fathers, and all three avoided public scandals during their gubernatorial administrations (barely for one!) which would have disqualified them for higher office.  All three of them are also populists, in the sense that early in their respective campaigns, big business and labor backed their opponents rather than them. Wall Street favored candidates like Senators Kennedy, Tsongas, and Bentsen, Governors Brown and Romney, and Mayor Giuliani over the three Southern Baptist candidates.

Yet, in spite of these considerable similarities, there are significant differences between the three former Southern governors.  Some of these dissimilarities are attributable to personality, but others can be attributed to the training each former governor received.
Jimmy Carter, of course, received his training at the Naval Academy, graduated with a Bachelor of Science degree in engineering, and served as a submariner in both the Atlantic and Pacific fleets.  The training for engineers by its very nature is detail oriented (thank goodness, because who would want to be the first to cross a bridge designed and built by someone sloppy with details?).  True to his training, Jimmy Carter during his presidency exhibited great attention to detail, including telling Americans the precise temperature they should set their thermostats in order to preserve sufficient energy, and keeping a detailed schedule for the White House tennis courts.

Bill Clinton, the Rhodes Scholar and Yale Law graduate, also governed consistent with his legal training.  Law school is filled with practical courses like civil procedure, legal research and writing, and evidence, all of which teach students the language and rules of law which provide it with structure.  There are also more theoretical courses, such as constitutional law and Political and Civil Rights, which are more akin to philosophy and permit virtually endless debate on such things as the origin and development of rights and duties, and the formation of society and its rules.  In these theoretical courses law students perfect in-depth analysis of issues, working on issues in a fashion similar to a fine jeweler who, before determining a diamond’s value, will carefully inspect a diamond from the side, top and bottom for clarity, cut, and color.  Reportedly, Professor Clinton when teaching constitutional law at the University of Arkansas Law School used the same type of circular analytical style, often spicing his lectures with politics and policy.  Clinton’s famous “bull sessions” in the White House were classic examples of the critical thinking and analysis training that Clinton perfected in law school.

What should we anticipate in Mike Huckabee’s governance style based on his training?  In undergraduate school, Gov. Huckabee had a broad liberal arts education with a special emphasis on speech and communication, a worthy concentration for a future pastor.  His training at Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary would have included classes in language skills (Greek and Hebrew), hermeneutics (how to interpret the Bible), systematic theology, evangelism, ethics, spiritual formation, and applied teaching.  These courses are not designed to train students to focus on details (such as engineering) or in-depth analysis such as law school (although hermeneutics does consider word analysis).  Rather, these courses continue the undergraduate practice of broad theoretical training with a special emphasis on theological issues and practical applications like rhetorical skills.
Based on his education and training, President Huckabee would not resemble the lawyer-presidents like Clinton and Nixon; nor would he resemble the engineer-presidents like Carter and Hoover.  Rather, given Huckabee’s education and training, his style of governance would more likely resemble Presidents such as Ronald Reagan, John F. Kennedy, and Woodrow Wilson, all of whom had a background in the humanities and liberal arts, and perceived their roles more broadly than the detailed, highly analytical and hard-working approaches of Carter and Clinton.  Neither Reagan nor Kennedy was renowned for the analysis they brought to issues, but yet they each had an unusual ability to connect well with the American people.  Huckabee with his friendly, next-door neighbor type of demeanor similarly has the ability to connect, although perhaps not with the same electricity as Barack Obama. 

Ouachita Baptist University’s most famous graduate lacks the educational pedigree of Harvard Law graduates Obama and Romney, Yale Law graduate Clinton, and Naval Academy graduate McCain.  Yet Ronald Reagan did okay as a Dixon (Illinois) College graduate, and Harry Truman demonstrated great wisdom and courage as the Commander-in-Chief without any education beyond high school.  Pedigree may not make much difference with the American electorate, but previous training should since it tells us something about how the candidate will relate to problems when they arise during his/her administration.