The Huckaboom Means a Conservabust
Does the ascension of socially conservative Baptist minister Mike Huckabee in the presidential race spell disaster for the GOP? In his surge, Rick Moran detects the signs of "the great conservative crack-up that has been predicted for years."
Support Pajamas Media; Visit Our Advertisers
That thud you just heard is the sound of the conservative coalition that elected Republican majorities to Congress cracking up and hitting the floor.
The higher the poll numbers for former Arkansas governor Mike Huckabee rise, the lower the spirits of some conservatives who see the advent of the socially conservative Baptist minister as a disaster in the making for the party.
No doubt some of these commentators support other candidates and are animated less by concern for the party then they are in supporting their favorite. But beyond Huckabee’s questionable record on fiscal issues while governor - increasing the tax burden on the individual taxpayer an astonishing 63% while allowing a sharp increase in spending - there is the nagging, scratchy feeling that Huckabee’s questionable positions on immigration and foreign policy represent a decidedly unconservative tilt to his politics.
In fact, many of us believe he is a virtual clone of George W. Bush - a big government conservative (if there is such a beast) whose policy prescriptions would mean an even greater expansion of government than occurred under the current occupant of the White House.
But the real bone of contention that many conservatives have with Huckabee goes to the heart of the struggle in the Republican party and the broader conservative movement; just what does it mean to be a conservative? Espousing social con positions on abortion and gay marriage while governing like a moderate version of a Democrat hardly recommends a candidate to those who follow other strains of conservatism such as those on the right who are most concerned about fiscal responsibility or federalism. And those who support a strong defense and taking the war on terror to the enemy have not been comforted by many of Huckabee’s platitudes and amateurish policy pronouncements.
This then is the battleground and conservatives are starting to choose up sides. Christians are getting mad at libertarian conservatives who can’t stomach Huckabee’s sly appeals to religiosity - an anathema anyway to those who think that the social issues receive too much prominence in Republican politics as it is. These same Christians see what many refer to as the Goldwater “Leave me the hell alone” wing of the party as being terribly condescending toward evangelicals, manipulating their vote every two years in order to rack up majority after majority in Congress while electing President Bush twice.
The schism first became noticeable during the imbroglio over Terri Schiavo, the severely brain damaged Florida woman whose husband went to court in order to get permission to remove her feeding tube. Schiavo’s parents objected, pleading to keep their daughter alive.
Social conservatives threw themselves into the defense of Schiavo’s right to life with a passion. They were opposed with equal passion by the libertarians who believed the case to be a private, family matter. Before the dust settled, the two sides - libertarians and social cons - were staring across a great divide that only now is revealing itself to be unbridgeable. And the rise of Huckabee has, if anything, only widened the gap.
But why? Huckabee is a genial fellow who doesn’t force his religion down people’s throats (although some of his eye-popping positions - supporting creationism and signing a letter which argued that a woman should be subserviant to a man - would be used against him in a general election). Nor does Huckabee qualify as an extremist.
It is more related to the urban/rural tensions in the party than perhaps any objection to Huckabee using his faith to energize the Christian right. Surely there are as many urban evangelicals as there are rural libertarians. But the heart of the party is still in the south and what used to be called “The Bible Belt.” These Republicans are more socially conservative than party members who live in the urban and suburban centers of the north and west.
They have stood by and watched as what they call the “Wall Street ” wing of the party denigrates their social agenda and takes their vote for granted. Supporting Huckabee and listening to the rest of the party wail about the candidate’s faith and unelectability only makes them more determined to support him. This also goes for the growing number of “Main Street” conservatives who have an affinity with the Christian right and have bought into Huckabee’s vision of a less corporate, more compassionate party.
Is this the great conservative crack-up that has been predicted for years? It is hard to see Huckabee bridging the gap - not after he has tailored his appeal so finely toward the Christian right. He has flipped on immigration and flopped on sanctions against Cuba to bring some of his views more in line with mainstream conservatives. But the switches in positions were done inartfully and raised questions about the candidate’s core beliefs with libertarian and other conservatives who fear the Democrats - especially the experienced attack machine of Hillary Clinton - making mincemeat of the governor’s inconstancy.
Perhaps the only candidate who could successfully bridge the gap between social and libertarian conservatives would be Mitt Romney whose values based campaign is more ecumenical in nature and whose credentials as a mainstream conservative are more or less intact. But Romney has his own well-documented problems with religion and a there is a sizable segment of evangelical Christians who cannot see themselves supporting his campaign for reasons of faith.
Huckabee has subtly exploited this discomfort among the Christian right with Romney, which has also bred resentment among many fiscal conservatives who see Romney’s take charge attitude and record of unparalleled achievement as the kind of tonic that might change the culture in Washington. There has been nothing overt in Huckabee’s anti-Romney campaign. Just gentle reminders of who is the real Christian in the race.
With these forces arrayed against Huckabee and digging up more dirt almost every day - clemencies, improprer interventions with law enforcement, and speeches given years ago where as governor, Huckabee supported giving in-state tuition rates to illegal aliens - it would seem on the surface that Huckabee’s support would start to dribble away. But as vigorously as many in the party are opposing him and plotting his downfall, there is a pushback from the social cons and main street conservatives that is propelling his campaign along. No matter what revelations about Huckabee come out, he continues to surge.
The party now finds itself in a dilemma; defeat Huckabee and risk alienating the base of the party or embrace the former governor of Arkansas and risk losing big in the general election. While the latter is not written in blood, the former is a sure thing. And that’s why in the end, if Huckabee wins through and captures the nomination, I suspect the libertarians, the federalists, the anti-porkers, and the hawks will end up holding their nose and supporting him.
Rick Moran blogs at Right Wing Nut House.
| Comment |  Digg This |
 del.icio.us |
 |
 |
 PJM Home |
14 Comments
Cory:I think you are about 75% correct. Romney is the only candidate who can appeal to all types of conservative (a point National Review made during their endorsment). Huckabee isn’t anywhere near being a fiscal, illegal immmigrant, or foreign policy conservative. I’m honestly not sure why he has as much support as he does. If people would actually do their homework, I guarantee most would change their minds about liking him. Where I disagree is where you say real conservatives will hold their nose and go with him if necessissary. I certainly won’t. There are absolutely no conditions in which I would vote for Huckabigot and neither should anyone else who wants to see a real conservative elected to office. If Huck is nominated and then loses to Hillary, the evangelicals who put him there will have hell to pay…and I’ll help lead the charge.
Dec 19, 2007 - 6:31 am Rick Moran:I know exactly what you’re saying and would agree except for one thing:
The prospect of another Clinton in the WH just might override any and all objections conservatives might have of Huckabee.
That still won’t prevent a slaughter in my opinion.
Dec 19, 2007 - 7:05 am C Stanley:I think your assessment is quite accurate but I suspect Ed Rollins recognizes these truths as well. I imagine we’ll see a shift toward more fiscally conservative positions from Huckabee after the early primary races are done. In particular, I think that the federalism angle will be used just as it was in the Reagan campaign, and it’s a good defense for Huckabee’s fiscal record as a governor being different from how he’ll participate in budget battles as president.
Dec 19, 2007 - 9:00 am John Foland:Your words ring true, but sound a bit muted, considering the subject. Huckabee is, in my opinion, the absolute worst of a sorry list of Republican presidential aspirants. His record as Arkansas Governor is dismal, and his glaring religiosity is most discomforting, particularly on the heels of the hypocritical path of our current born-again great leader. Huckabee might be a successful Baptist preacher, but he makes a losing political candidate.
Dec 19, 2007 - 10:58 am Luke:Well, interesting article. But in all seriousness, the reason Huckabee has surged is two words, Chuck Norris. Chuck endorsed Huckabee and then his big surge happened, think about it. Hell, i almost like him now because of Chuck. People underestimate the “Chuck Factor.” I am a Thompson man, but if things dont pick up soon he wont win these states, which do indicate who will be the nominee. I did’nt come here to solicite, but, i encourage you all to donate a couple of bucks at fred08.com Anyways remember, Chuck Norris. He has enormous pull among the younger people (like myself) and he is definitely the reason Mike is even in the race.
Dec 19, 2007 - 12:42 pm cultivate:No way that the mugged-liberal neocon clones who bit the bullet and voted in 2004 for Dubya ( in my case for the first time ever for any Republican presidential candidate, and I’m sure I’m not alone in that) are going to hold our nose and out of sheer party loyalty (gimme me a break) vote for Huck, if push comes to shove.
I for one could stomach Obama or even Hillary a lot more easily than an unregenerate yokel like Huckabee… especially after seeing his outrageous and naive foreign policy ideas. I lived in rural West Virginia for years and some of my best friends (so to speak) were my evangelical yahoo neighbors. But at the national executive level, fergeddaboudit!
Dec 19, 2007 - 2:21 pm tyomach:Myself, as well as a lot of independents would consider voting for Guliani, but not for social conservatives. For the hawks Hillary is hawky enough. For fiscal conservatives- didn’t we have budget surplus with Bill? Hell, I would prefer Obama to Huck…
Dec 19, 2007 - 3:55 pm Hattie Caraway:Huckabee could prove to be the Democrats worst nightmare. He is solid on social issues, and is more populist than many of the Democratic candidates. His positions on trade resonate with Americans far more than do Senator Clinton’s NAFTA apologist positions. The fact is that Huckabee is in the tradition of William Jennings Bryan and Huey Long — populist politicians whose views were shaped by their religious faith. I usually vote for Democrats, and am voting for John Edwards in the California Democratic primary, but if it’s Huckabee against anyone but Edwards, count me for the Huck Man!
Dec 19, 2007 - 9:29 pm WR Jonas:Very interesting topic here and the possibilities of a chasm between factions could throw the GOP into a tailspin.
Dec 20, 2007 - 6:51 am WR Jonas:From my personal perspective the candidates I favored were completely marginalized ( Tancredo & Hunter)and those remaining do not genuinely have conservative beliefs at their core.
Since we’ve been suffering this kind of setback through years of election cycles I think we will still seek the man best suited for the job and remain true to our principles.
A possibility that is never discussed is what if the Democrats fail to seize the power they absolutely lust after?
I can easily see a permanent division between the Move On extremist left wing and the labor/blacks,education coalition in the Democratic Party. I think Micky Kos and his blog warriors are in control and they want complete control.
Very interesting topic here and the possibilities of a chasm between factions could throw the GOP into a tailspin.
From my personal perspective the candidates I favored were completely marginalized ( Tancredo & Hunter)and those remaining do not genuinely have conservative beliefs at their core.
Since we’ve been suffering this kind of setback through years of election cycles I think we will still seek the man best suited for the job and remain true to our principles.
A possibility that is never discussed is what if the Democrats fail to seize the power they absolutely lust after?
I can easily see a permanent division between the Move On extremist left wing and the labor/blacks,education coalition in the Democratic Party. I think Micky Kos and his blog warriors are in control and they want complete control.
Dec 20, 2007 - 8:20 am PDQuig:As with the Goldwater defeat, it will be better to be humiliated in Nov 20088 than to abandon core conservative principles. If our dangerous world does not reawaken the Democrat winners, then the country is not salvageable with a Republican in the White House anyway. It just takes another 30 years to reshape the judiciary. Life will go on…or it won’t. No amount of op-ed pundit straining against the tide of folly will dam the flood. The American people have a choice to make, and it will make a difference. We will get what we deserve.
Dec 20, 2007 - 12:07 pm george:Mike Huckabee is not a conservative or a real Republican. With him it will be more of the same; financially crippling war, inflation, and government intrusion on our lives.
Ron Paul is the only viable contender for the Republican Party. I urge you all to get on board and help us win the R3VOLUTION!
Dec 22, 2007 - 10:26 am MikeT:Huckabee’s more conservative than Romney, and would have a better chance of winning conservative votes in general than someone like Romney who is at best a moderate. If Ron Paul doesn’t win the nomination, I would vote Huckabee if Clinton wins the Democratic nomination.
Dec 22, 2007 - 9:21 pm Jeff S:I have to agree with virtually everything in the article and have been seeing these developements for years too. The first time I heard the term “compassionate conservative” I understood why it was invoked but also cringed. The Huck is the latest incarnation that is his own populist minister’s version of “compassionate” special interest big government in a social conservative vein (compassionate = socialist).
If only the religionists could understand that their social/cultural concerns are safely tended to by a conservative reading of the Constitution and Declaration of Independence, more in the tradition of Ronald Reagan’s populism than Ron Paul’s. In that light, and with some thought and scrutiny, this fracture need not occur. It’s up to the religionists.
I’m with Luke — Fred Thompson more clearly has conservative ideas and principles than the others because he’s more an ideologue and less a populist. But that also makes him less “exciting”.
Dec 23, 2007 - 1:37 pm