There has been much back slapping in the media and the blogosphere over identifying Mike Huckabee as a “Compassionate Conservative.” In fact a search of his website will find the phrase “Compassionate Conservatism” three times. (Changing to Compassionate Conservative” yields similar results.) In all three instances they are in the comments sections of posts. I don’t doubt that one can make the argument, but there appears to be a dearth of direct evidence for the accusation. In the absence of self-proclamation one must really wonder if there is an alternate agenda in play.
It probably doesn’t help matters that “compassionate conservatism” gets blamed for all that is wrong with the Bush administration. One part of the blame goes to the prescription drug expansion. What goes unmentioned there is that not a single candidate running for president actually is offering to repeal that benefit. It passed with plenty of support from folks who wouldn’t self-describe themselves as “compassionate conservatives.” Another part is the “No Child Left Behind Act.” Huckabee’s own education page actually criticizes “No Child Left Behind.” He states, “As President, my education agenda will include working towards a clear distinction between the federal role in assisting and empowering states and in usurping the right of states to carry out the education programs for their students.” The other part of “Compassionate Conservatism” was the subsidization of private sector efforts. This area was headed up by David Kuo until he became disgusted with the lack of action. These programs as best I can remember didn’t have much enthusiasm for subsidization at the federal level and generally fell under the category of “The government could do worse.”
The thing I find most interesting about the charge is that it is an indirect way of saying he’s running as George Bush. I find it humorous, because the three establishment candidates have been attempting to run as the competent Bush, and there really hasn’t been a whole lot said about it. The closest the establishment has come to acknowledging the truth is this National Review piece noting that the Republican base’s views are not in line with the electorate. Rudy Giuliani started his campaign as the one who would follow in Bush’s foot steps in the War on Terror but only better. Mitt Romney started his campaign as the candidate who would follow in Bush’s foot steps but better manage things given his experience. And of course Fred Thompson entered the race as the man who was more of a real social conservative and believed in limited government but would still lead in the War on Terror.
The truly amazing thing is that Huckabee’s ascendancy has come largely absent any attempt to ride Bush’s coattails. While some will claim it is ridiculous, President Bush’s policies really aren’t all that unpopular in the party. For the faithful, the frustrating thing has been the lack of execution, not the policies themselves. In Iowa particularly, I think Huckabee’s rise owes a significant debt to his heresy of heresies, lack of support for free trade. A front page Wall Street Journal article hinted at this the day before Thanksgiving. It would have been interesting to see how Duncan Hunter would have done if he hadn’t been such a one trick pony on immigration given that he has Protectionist views. We won’t know that, but the article was fascinating because it kept repeating in quotes and commentary that all the Iowans were a bunch of ignorant rubes for believing that free trade hadn’t benefited them. This despite the story noting how their health care plans were worse and how at least one company had gone to a two tier wage system so that children growing up in these towns would have no hope of supporting their families in the jobs their fathers had used to support their families. Actually acknowledging the real effects of our trade policies is what is really helping Huckabee connect with the over 40% of the base that doesn’t believe the FiscalCon lie of free trade.
While Huckabee’s rhetoric on trade is a factor in his recent surge in the polls, the bigger factors are the Fair Tax people and Chuck Norris.
I think it’s general dissatisfaction with the two big shots, Romney and Rudy. I hope we see McCain do well, personally.
I think his rise has to do with the fact he is extremely well spoken and seems like a genuine guy. I’ve found myself nodding when he speaks although he isn’t supposed to be as “conservative” (whatever that means!) as I am. I think it also helps that during the “debates” RudyMcRomney constantly argue and seem desperate to be President, and Huckabee just answers in an extremely articulate manner and gives good answers.
If I can get proof he is as strong on the 2nd amendment and the fairtax as he says he is, he will be a strong 2nd to FDT (or the main choice if polls continue their current path).
Actually, the “Fair Tax” proposal is the silliest I have seen this reason, up there with the restoration of the gold standard and the establishment of a department of peace. Still, Huckabee is by far the least objectionable of the Republican candidates, even though his Iraq war position is horrible.
Personally, what turns me off of Huckabee most is not so much his policies (he’s not great but none of them are) as his unseriousness. A presidential candidate who’s first ad in Iowa features him saying “There is no chin under Chuck Norris’ beard, only another fist,” who responds to a question about his lack of foreign policy experience by saying “I may not be the expert that some people are on foreign policy, but I did stay in a Holiday Inn Express last night,” and who responds to concerns over immigration by saying “I drink a different kind of Jesus juice” doesn’t inspire a lot of confidence.
Oh come on, the Chuck Norris thing was a breath of fresh air as political ads go. My concern with Huckabee is his messianic complex– he seems (in recent speeches at least) to believe that God is behind his surge in the polls. That is exactly the sort of “religion” that should keep its distance from politics.
Speaking as a Catholic faithful to the Magisterium, I am very alarmed at the rise of Huckabee in the polls, and I think he would be a terrible general election candidate who would be savaged by the Clintonistas. The reason is because his appeal only extends to the evangelical/social conservative wing of the party. He does not have cross-faction appeal, he will keep the fiscal conservatives and libertarians who support the Republican party on the sidelines.
He has much ethical baggage from his governorship, and his record regarding clemencies and pardons was atrocious. His record on illegal immigration was weak, and he was a tax and spender. If I didn’t know better, I’d think we were nominating a pro-life Democrat. Doesn’t conservatism within the Republican Party matter anymore? Or are we as a party susceptible to anyone who has a silver tongue and can sell you a bridge in Brooklyn?
I think your argument has two difficulties:
1) I’m really not sure how many Libertarians and Fiscal Cons will move to support the Democratic Party.
2) I don’t think there are enough of them in Pennsylvania, Ohio, Indiana, and Iowa to to outweigh the heavily disillisioned Regean Democrats. Any GOP strategy that includes losing both PA and OH and possibly losing the other two is not one that I think will win. I’ve already written off MN, WI, and MI who haven’t supported a Republican at the national level in a long time.
It is odd that a guy whose main domestic idea is getting rid of the income tax would be regarded as having nothing to offer fiscal conservatives. I think M.Z. is right that the best way for the GOP to win in 2008 is to temper (or at least temporize) some of its support for free market principles. I don’t like it, personally, but that’s where the votes are. The problem is that to win, a candidate also has to be credible on national security, and Huckabees goofiness gets in the way of this. A candidate needn’t promise to nuke Iran, obviously, but he has to be able to project a sense of toughness, of gravitas, that will make people feel protected and safe.
Blackadder
Dr. David Banner for President, then?
Toughness and gravitas that will make people seem safe…. of God, not that again. I think this is a side effect of the strong Calvinist-Gnostic strain in American culture. . Americans do not like seeing themselves as mere forgiven sinners, with a “there, but for the grace of God go I” attitude. How else you do validate your status as one of the elect if not by scapegoating others? There is a perverse psychological effect: Americans have an obsessive need to be the good guys, as otherwise they might be damned. I believe this explains continued high levels of support for the death penalty, overlooking the failure to observe ius in bello during world war 2, and the noisy clambering for an global “war on terror” in the aftermath of the collapse of the World Trade Center. Every time the bad guy is punished, the person on the other side feels affirmed in his goodness. It is the psychological fallout of a dysfunctional theology.
Let me put it a different way. The British dealt with IRA terrorism for years. They correctly say that the best way to defeat terrorism was through the criminal justice system, and an attempt to alleviate the underlying problems. There was no talk of bombing west Belfast or declaring a war on “Catholic fascism”. There was no over-reaction because the Brits did not feel an existential vulnerability after being hit by terrorists, a fear that shook the core of the very sense of self in the world order.
I’m not sure how much we know his foreign policy at this point. His speech to the CFR had a reasonable position on Iran. He stated that Iran being a nation-state could be treated like one, and I think the NIE confirms that. I think we’ll have a better idea once we get an idea of who his foreign policy advisers are. Outside of Ron Paul, I don’t think you’ll see a gross diversity of foreign policy positions among the GOP candidates.
If I didn’t know better, I’d think we were nominating a pro-life Democrat.
What’s so bad about that? Are we thinking as Catholics or as Republicans?
His record on illegal immigration was weak,
What does this mean? And how as a “Catholic faithful to the Magisterium” you would want a candidate who is “strong” on illegal immigration? What “Magisterium” are we talking about here? The bishops and even the Popes have been very clear on the fair and humane treatment that illegal immigrants deserve as human beings. This is not the same treatment being trumpeted by most in the Republican platform.
Not this again. Fair and humane treatment of people is far, far away from letting them walk all over those who follow a just law and pay their fair share. From a governing perspective, he’s supposed to support those who elect him. Why should he let people who skirt the system and basically steal from his constituents take precedence over them? A fair and humane treatment would be to transport where they came from, and perhaps punish them for stealing the identity they needed to get a job, and make them pay back taxes. Once that happens, they would be welcome to come back into the country legally, assuming they’re not a major criminal.
Huckabee’s record on immigration is hardly fair to the people he would be electing. Don’t get me started on his clemency for major criminals.
Jeff Emmanuel offers a terse reply to the post here.
He charges that one can still make the argument that Huckabee is a compassionate conservative. I said so explicitly. It happened to follow the part he excerpted, so I don’t think his point is all that revelatory. In doing so he misses the point made in the following sentence that I’m addressing those who use the appelation for their own agenda.
He then attempts to argue greater spending without identifying that spending. Considering that I identified Medicare, Education, and misc. small social programs, am I to assume that he is referring to Homeland Security, Transportation, and Defense? His dismissal of the Medicare expansion also ignores that no candidate is offering to repeal it. I don’t mind disagreement, but if he does have significant disagreements with Bush’s spending priorities, and he is presumably willing to support the Defense and Homeland Security expenditures, and he is unwilling to attribute those spending failures to Compassionate Conservatism, then he really needs to enlighten us as to where this unliked spending is coming from. Bonus points for him if he can argue that Huckabee is philosophically inclined to do the same.
As far as insulting to intelligence, to call a candidate who has had no fewer than 5 hit pieces written about him in a month, opposition from the Club for Growth and National Review, and anemic fund raising numbers an establishment candidate is a joke and a cruel one at that. I hate feigned ignorance. In his competent Bush analysis he conveniently leaves out foreign policy, something I was pretty explicit about. He ends up in substanciating my argument that people are using the label compassionate conservative to serve their own agendas.
Huckabee is performing the function of “none of the above” for cultural conservative Republicans. Although I could vote for him in a heartbeat against Mrs. Clinton, I find his fair tax ideas, along with his history of raising taxes disquieting. I think his recent flubbing of a question on the National Intelligence Estimate also betrays a “not ready for prime time” quality. Huckabee may well be on the ticket but not in the top slot.