The Candidates
Featured Archives
David Brooks has an absolute must-read in today’s New York Times dealing with the broader implications of Huckabee’s victory in the context of the future of the Republican Party and of conservatism. Money quote:
On the Republican side, my message is: Be not afraid. Some people are going to tell you that Mike Huckabee’s victory last night in Iowa represents a triumph for the creationist crusaders. Wrong.
Huckabee won because he tapped into realities that other Republicans have been slow to recognize. First, evangelicals have changed. Huckabee is the first ironic evangelical on the national stage. He’s funny, campy (see his Chuck Norris fixation) and he’s not at war with modern culture.
Second, Huckabee understands much better than Mitt Romney that we have a crisis of authority in this country. People have lost faith in their leaders’ ability to respond to problems. While Romney embodies the leadership class, Huckabee went after it. He criticized Wall Street and K Street. Most importantly, he sensed that conservatives do not believe their own movement is well led. He took on Rush Limbaugh, the Club for Growth and even President Bush. The old guard threw everything they had at him, and their diminished power is now exposed.
Third, Huckabee understands how middle-class anxiety is really lived. Democrats talk about wages. But real middle-class families have more to fear economically from divorce than from a free trade pact. A person’s lifetime prospects will be threatened more by single parenting than by outsourcing. Huckabee understands that economic well-being is fused with social and moral well-being, and he talks about the inter-relationship in a way no other candidate has.
In that sense, Huckabee’s victory is not a step into the past. It opens up the way for a new coalition.
A conservatism that recognizes stable families as the foundation of economic growth is not hard to imagine. A conservatism that loves capitalism but distrusts capitalists is not hard to imagine either. Adam Smith felt this way. A conservatism that pays attention to people making less than $50,000 a year is the only conservatism worth defending.
Will Huckabee move on and lead this new conservatism? Highly doubtful. The past few weeks have exposed his serious flaws as a presidential candidate. His foreign policy knowledge is minimal. His lapses into amateurishness simply won’t fly in a national campaign.
So the race will move on to New Hampshire. Mitt Romney is now grievously wounded. Romney represents what’s left of Republicanism 1.0. Huckabee and McCain represent half-formed iterations of Republicanism 2.0. My guess is Republicans will now swing behind McCain in order to stop Mike.
Huckabee probably won’t be the nominee, but starting last night in Iowa, an evangelical began the Republican Reformation.
All of this begs the question as to whether 2008 will be the national GOP’s Pete Wilson moment. Between 1966 and 1990, the State of California, the original test case for Reagan conservatism, filled its state house with Republican governors of the Reagan conservative mold for 16 out of 24 years. The last of these governors, George Deukmejian, was elected and reelected in the 1980s and was the last traditionally conservative governor California has ever known. In 1990, the Republican Party, in a silent but seismic revolution, nominated moderate Republican Pete Wilson for governor, a candidate who went on to serve two terms in the state house and who was always touted as something other than a Reagan conservative. Far from a fluke, Wilson’s governorship signaled the emergence of a new kind of Republicanism in the Golden State. Conservatives’ attempts to return to the Reagan model in post-Wilson California with candidates like Dan Lungren, Bill Simon, and Tom McClintock, failed miserably, making way instead for liberal Republican Arnold Schwarzenegger to win back-to-back gubernatorial elections. In other words, in California, the very core of the Republican Party changed overnight, and not with a bang, but a whimper. The trad-cons never saw it coming.
Like California’s GOP, the national Republican Party may also be ready for its Pete Wilson moment, i.e., for an election that transforms the party from one that adheres to the Reagan model of supply-side economics, limited government, a quiet social conservatism, and a hawkishness on defense to something other than that. In California, the evolution was towards a new liberal Republicanism. But nationally, we may be seeing the beginning of the Party of Pawlenty.
If John McCain wins New Hampshire next Tuesday, this will mark the first time ever that both the Hawkeye and Granite States have given their respective top spots to culturally conservative economic pragmatists without any real philosophical opposition to government action. Mike Huckabee and John McCain are far from the same candidate, but on domestic issues, both seem to be cut from a similar cloth, which is also the formula embraced and perhaps embodied by the current governor of Minnesota. This is why all three men are viewed suspiciously by the increasingly irrelevant conservative establishment, which, in an almost Pharisaic manner, demands only that candidates check very specific boxes without concern for new, inventive approaches to running government in a changing world.
As Brooks notes, though, the differences between McCain and Huckabee are real, and they seem to represent dueling, if imperfect, prototypes for a post-Reagan Republicanism. But both seem to emanate from the Pawlenty formula, which consists of a non-ideological economic policy with a focus on problem-solving and a post-culture-war cultural conservatism that emphasizes the human dignity side of social issues and that comprehends the overlap between social policy and other sorts of policy, such as the relationship between single-parent homes, poverty, and crime. This sort of real-world, hands-on conservatism seems to be the form of Republicanism that is catching on along the Mississippi River. Should the race for the GOP nod come down to Huckabee and McCain on Super Tuesday, we’ll be looking at a very different set of Republican philosophies battling to lead an ever-evolving Republican Party. In that sense, perhaps 2008 is not the year in which conservatism will be condemned, but fulfilled. Perhaps the Republican Party won’t go the way of the Whigs, but will instead be born anew.
January 4th, 2008 at 5:49 pm
Nice recap DaveG. I’m curious if the truce between McCain and Huckabee lasts only until Tuesday night and then all bets are off between them. MSM thought is that if Romney takes the silver again in NH that he’s further marginalized and if that materializes, the smart money is on a good battle between McCain and Huckabee.
I’d LOVE to see all of that ‘POSITIVE’ campaigning between the two of them! Lol!
January 4th, 2008 at 5:53 pm
DAVEG,
If you think Huckabee’s a moderate, then what’s Mitt Romney?
January 4th, 2008 at 5:54 pm
Peter, a conservative.
January 4th, 2008 at 5:54 pm
I agree FCOH…funny how the two liberal GOPers are joining up to take out the most conservative one!
January 4th, 2008 at 5:56 pm
Nice recap DaveG. I’m curious if the truce between McCain and Huckabee lasts only until Tuesday night and then all bets are off between them. MSM thought is that if Romney takes the silver again in NH that he’s further marginalized and if that materializes, the smart money is on a good battle between McCain and Huckabee. I’d LOVE to see all of that ‘POSITIVE’ campaigning between the two of them! Lol!
They’ll be playing right into the RUDYBOOM!
…This is really gonna work!
January 4th, 2008 at 5:57 pm
Hope so TLG…
January 4th, 2008 at 5:59 pm
Murphy,
Who became a conservative to appease a conservative audience, and who will become a moderate if he wins the nomination, just like he became a liberal to run in Massachusetts.
Seriously, how can you trust this guy who just says whatever he thinks the people will like?
Panderer, phony, what?
January 4th, 2008 at 6:05 pm
Peter…it is easy! He acted like a conservative in office!!
McCain has not
Huck has not
You have a probably trusting Mitt’s record, yet willing to accept blindly mere words by Huck and/or McCain!
January 4th, 2008 at 6:07 pm
Peter,
Tell you what. Maybe you can explain to me why anyone should trust Huckabee with stuff like this:
In defending his 1992 position that AIDS victims should be quarantined, Huckabee stated recently that, “In 1992 we weren’t clear how AIDS was transmitted.†OOPS. By 1988 the CDC, the NIH, and Surgeon General C. Edward Coop had made clear public policy statements and even sent information to every household explaining that you could not contract AIDS from “kissing, tears, sweat, or saliva.â€
Huckabee said that his 1033 clemencies in 10 years “was in line with other governors who have served the state.†OOPS. Bill Clinton, Frank White and Tucker granted 507 clemencies in the 17 1/2 years they served as governor.
Huckabee said he had proposed to make children of illegal aliens eligible for Arkansas scholarships if they “had been in our schools their entire school life.†OOPS. The proposal required only three years in Arkansas schools.
When confronted with a YouTube video in which he called for tax increases as Arkansas Governor he said that the tax hikes were in response to “a supreme court order that we had to fund education at a higher level.†OOPS. Fox news investigated and found that not to be true. In fact the tax hikes were to cover a general revenue shortfall as a result of increased state spending.
On numerous occasions in debate and on the stump Governor Huckabee cites as justification for raising the gas and fuel tax the supposed fact that 80% of Arkansans voted to support it. OOPS. On April 1, 1999 Huckabee signed the gas and fuel tax hikes into law. The tax hikes began taking effect that day. On June 15, 1999 (some two and a half months later) 80% of Arkansas voters approved a bond issue, which DID NOT include the gas tax increases.
Meanwhile, Romney’s previous platform as a conservative can be viewed here.
January 4th, 2008 at 6:08 pm
Ilfigo,
“He acted like a conservative in office!!”
–Only when it came time to think about running for President.
That “he governed like a conservative” stuff is garbage and you know it.
January 4th, 2008 at 6:10 pm
Ok If you know it…give me an example of his liberal acts in office!
January 4th, 2008 at 6:10 pm
Let’s say things like “Huckabee’s not a conservative” so much that we might actually start believing them!
January 4th, 2008 at 6:13 pm
Pop quiz. Which is more conservative?
Huck: Raising overall taxes 47% and increasing spending at three times the rate of inflation, while increasing general obligation loans by $1 billion.
Romney: Balancing a $3 billion deficit with spending cuts, tucking $1 billion into a state rainy day fund, and by balancing $250 million of service fee hikes with proportional tax cuts.
January 4th, 2008 at 6:16 pm
When Romney was Governor he supported civil unions for homosexuals.
He cut funding for state colleges which forced them to increase tuition by over 60%.
He had co-pays for abortions in his health plan.
He discouraged anti-gay marriage State House candidates from mentioning the issue when they ran for office in favor of talking about “tax cuts.”
Local taxes increased under Romney.
No wonder all this stopped when he started thinking about running for president.
January 4th, 2008 at 6:24 pm
Peter: When Romney was Governor he supported civil unions for homosexuals.
That was a one time legislative move to try and do anything to avoid homosexual marriages. Romney was extremely clear that he opposed both, but civil unions were preferable.
Peter: He cut funding for state colleges which forced them to increase tuition by over 60%.
It’s called privatization, and it’s conservative.
Peter: He had co-pays for abortions in his health plan.
As mandated by the MA Supreme Court and state laws on the books, ANY health plan had to have co-pays for abortions.
Peter: He discouraged anti-gay marriage State House candidates from mentioning the issue when they ran for office in favor of talking about “tax cuts.â€
Ever heard of winning campaign issues?
Peter: Local taxes increased under Romney.
As a result of his state spending cuts, and local politicians who were not as fiscally responsible as Romney was.
Honestly, Peter, that’s misleading and unsubstantial stuff you’re using. Atleast I stuck to the facts.
January 4th, 2008 at 6:27 pm
Who is Rudy?
January 4th, 2008 at 6:43 pm
Peter probably thinks “conservative” is raising taxes and spending, and releasing murderers. You can’t argue with him until he pins down what he actually considers “conservative”.
January 4th, 2008 at 6:46 pm
Romney has created jobs by building business and stimulating the economy. Huckabee creates jobs by increasing government spending and increasing taxes. So I guess they’ve both created jobs for the middle class….just at what expense.
January 4th, 2008 at 6:48 pm
After Iowa Huckabee’s campaign advisor (I believe that’s what he was) said that this election is going to create a new republican coalition. Obviously putting aside the coalition that Regan created, for one that is more liberal on fiscal issues.
January 4th, 2008 at 6:53 pm
I can’t wait until after Tuesday when everyone will realize Mitt is done. It’ll be so nice to have to stop reading the Rombots.
January 4th, 2008 at 7:06 pm
“I can’t wait until after Tuesday when everyone will realize Mitt is done. It’ll be so nice to have to stop reading the Rombots.”
Oh, please. They’ll drop Romney so fast to leap on the Gov. Huckabee bandwagon to victory in ‘08 that time will move backwards. Soon we’ll be hearing about how Gov. Huckabee has a superb ground organization and how he saved the world by saving the olympics and stuff like that. The king is dead, long live the king …
January 4th, 2008 at 8:16 pm
bjalder,
Why do you suppose economic growth in Massachusetts under Romney was below the national average?
January 4th, 2008 at 8:20 pm
I get Huckabee’s claim to being conservative: HE SAVED TAXPAYER DOLLARS by commuting the sentences and supporting pardons for more than 1000 felons.
Do you know how much it would have cost to keep Wayne in prison?!
January 4th, 2008 at 8:28 pm
MWS #22,
Could it be that the tech bubble burst just before Romney came into office, and MA is far more heavily invested in tech companies than the national average?
January 4th, 2008 at 8:30 pm
The press and Romney’s opponents are so anxious to create the mindset that he is doomed if he doesn’t take first in NH. The state of the race does not support this position. Should be assume that if Huck comes in third in NH that he should stay and Romney should leave? Should Romney bow out to McCain, a candidate with serious problems that may be glossed over for a short period (like Huckabee’s in Iowa), because McCain beats him in one small state (with the strong backing of the press)? The longer the campaign goes on, the greater the likelihood that McCain will crack (he is a loose cannon!). I anticipate that at least four Republican candidates will make it to Florida, giving them a better opportunity to prove their mettle–and rightfully reducing the influence of the first two states.
Face it, the historical models do not match the current reality. The winnowing effect will take more time, providing more opportunity for unanticipated events to alter the race. Folding early, even for Thompson, would be a mistake.
January 4th, 2008 at 8:35 pm
murphy,
#24 won’t fly. Remember, Rombots never consider the particulars of a state whe evaluating records. They only talk about up or down, more or less. They don’t even consider the final result, just the movement. Therefore, you are just making excuses, and Romney is a failure.
January 4th, 2008 at 11:38 pm
Count me out. I’m not a Republican because I enjoy having a nifty “R” next to my name.
If the GOP goes in a direction that will hurt America, I want nothing to do with it. And I’m not sure how California can even begin to be a model we want to follow.
January 4th, 2008 at 11:47 pm
Well, California isn’t the model, Thomas. I was simply citing California as illustrative of the way a population sometimes moves away from a political philosophy it once supported. To be blunt, Reagan conservatism was born in California, reigned in California, and is now unelectable in California. I think the same thing may be happening now nationally, as evidenced by the dismal performances of the “Republicans 1.0″ in the race, Romney and Thompson. But it’s not that the nation is embracing Pete Wilson Republicanism. I think the national version of that is closer Tim Pawlenty Republicanism, as evidenced by the successes of GOP governors like T-Paw and, well, Huckabee. If McCain and Huckabee are the final two, that speaks volumes about where the GOP electorate is headed.
January 5th, 2008 at 1:02 am
Tim Pawlenty is hardly the model I want to follow either. In case you haven’t noticed, Minnesota’s gone from trending Republican to bright blue under his leadership.
January 5th, 2008 at 11:04 am
Peter does not care about truthful statements, his agenda is to malign and using information out of context is fine with him.