I’ve been doing quite a bit of reading lately (which somewhat explains my increased output over the last few days) and I’ve read a bunch of articles about how one wing of the party will be ditched in favor of another wing of the party and so on… and I don’t know if it will be possible to find a way out of this spot the GOP now currently finds itself in anytime soon.
Earlier today, I was doing a Google search about the latest libertarian vs. so-con knockdown/dragout, and I came across this post on a blog called mytake, which linked to my rather enrage-fueled tirade from the other night about Mike Huckabee. Other than the fact that the blogger (Larry) didn’t notice that I wrote a follow up explaining that I was unaware that Huckabee had been in Georgia when the post was published, I have to admit that he makes some good points.
It appears that there are two kinds of people when it comes to Mike Huckabee. You either really like him or you really don’t. There doesn’t seem to be a lot of middle ground when it comes to his political aspirations. I have tried to be objective about the man, even though I did support him in his campaign and fully expect to support him in 2012, if he decides to run.
This may be one of the smartest things I’ve heard since I started blogging, and definitely one of the most objective points made by a staunch Huckabee supporter about Mike Huckabee that I’ve come across.
This Post Is Not Really About Mike Huckabee
I’m using this particular piece because it struck to the heart of why I’m not sure the party can get out of this mess by 2010 or 2012. I understand where Larry is coming from and that is why I feel his post is a good example of what I’m getting at.
See this example, which was published last December in Human Events:
There are mutterings in the ranks of social conservatives. For nearly thirty years, those who joined to Republican party primarily to stop the slaughter of the innocents — but also to support traditional marriage, fight pornography, oppose judicial activism, and protect Second Amendment rights — have been good soldiers.
They have voted by the millions for candidates who were first and foremost economic conservatives, even libertarians, contenting themselves with a few rhetorical crumbs. They have embraced candidates who have had a change of heart on the life issues, such as Bush Senior. They have even gone along with candidates who have suddenly announced that they have had the political equivalent of a death-bed conversion–an election-year epiphany on the evil of abortion.
Now one of their own, Governor Mike Huckabee, has sprinted into the lead in Iowa. And some economic conservatives, their supposed allies, are savaging him for-of all things — not being conservative enough.
I can completely understand why some social conservatives feel like they are being verbally abused by the rest of the GOP. I agree that some of the rhetoric has gotten way out of hand on both sides of the issue. They revolted against the establishment when they felt like they were being force-fed candidates whom they had no real faith in. They felt many in the GOP establishment, George Will comes to mind, were trying to force them to sacrifice their own deeply held convictions and support Rudy Giuliani were he to win the nomination.
Now, I happen to like Rudy Giuliani, and although he wasn’t my choice for the nomination, he was a candidate I would’ve enthusiastically supported. However, as most who are familiar with my opinions will realize, my personal convictions are deeply rooted in federalism, and I abide by the principle of philosophy to shape my views in most every case. I’m personally socially conservative, but I will be the first to admit that my own interpretation of conservatism as being defined by the federalist principle re-introduced through Goldwater, disqualifies me from being a true Social Conservative, since I usually oppose actions made by the federal government that intervene in morality. While I may not agree with the social conservatives angry over Giuliani, I can understand why they were adamantly opposed to him. Personally, I happen to think that the Mayor would’ve made a fine president, had he been the GOP’s nominee. For most of 2007, he was my number two candidate, and if his downfall had not happened at precisely the same time as my personal choice for the ticket, I would’ve come out and supported him. In the end though, he probably wasn’t the best choice to lead the GOP, at this particular point in time, because he would’ve splintered the party.
The problem was that the idea of Giuliani as the nominee royally ticked off a significant portion of the base of the party and it inadvertently led to the rise of Mike Huckabee’s campaign. Their opinions of the other alternatives came up short. Whether their opinions were ultimately fair or not, they didn’t feel that Mitt Romney had earned their trust as a social conservative, and they felt that Fred Thompson didn’t live up to what they had hoped for. I happen to think they were wrong, but in the end, it is their right to feel as such. They found in Governor Huckabee someone whom they could undoubtedly trust on matters such as life and faith. Throw in the militant FairTax supporters, and you’ve got yourself some serious political weight. In the end, it was their lack of faith in Romney and Thompson and their belief in Mike Huckabee led to John McCain’s victory. His support was unenthusiastic, but he was the only candidate left standing that maintained a small base of support within each element of the GOP.
They found a candidate they could believe in after they felt like the rest of the party had turned their backs on them, and they fought for their candidate.
Both Sides Failed
The struggle the GOP now finds itself in is grounded in very deep rooted philosophical debates, whether it be the social conservatives versus the fiscal conservatives or the new blood versus the old blood. It was the failure of the party to come to any sort of understanding in their disagreements, or to listen to any sort of reasoning that the other sides had to offer. Both sides tried to silence the other, creating animosity and ill will among the rank and file voters who the GOP counts on to help deliver electoral victories.
Ultimately, both sides failed and that is why the GOP is stuck in the depressing situation it now finds itself in. As I outlined above, many of the fiscal conservatives failed the party because of their unwillingness to listen to the social wing’s protests, and they failed the party by isolating those voters from the rest of the party.
The purely-Social Conservative wing of the party (many of whom are in the Huckabee camp) is every bit as guilty as those whom they have deemed their opposition within the party. They need to understand that it’s not their views on social issues that many of the fiscal conservatives are so upset about, it’s that the person whom represents them is out on his book tour vocally trashing libertarian viewpoints within the party, and his grassroots bash anyone who does not agree with them (witness the Huckabee Army’s trashing of Gary Bauer).
Larry is right, Mike Huckabee is a candidate who people either love or hate. The problem is that it takes a lot more than the support of one wing of a party to succeed. In Huckabee’s case, one wing really loves him, and the rest of the party can not stand him. Many bring up charges of elitism, but that has really nothing to do with it.
After his rhetoric directed towards the libertarian and Goldwater wings of the party, any chance he had of garnering universal support within the GOP is gone. I hate to harp on Reaganisms and I don’t want to turn this into another thread specifically about Huckabee, but when one person specifically attacks a wing of the party that Reagan described as vital to the survival of the GOP, then that person does not have the full understanding of what it would take to lead the party by trying to identify themselves with someone who they have fundamental differences on ideology.
Compare Mike Huckabee’s statement to that of Reagan…
Here’s the now near infamous quote from Huckabee, from his book which was released this week:
The greatest threat to classic Republicanism is not liberalism; it’s this new brand of libertarianism, which is social liberalism and economic conservatism, but it’s a heartless, callous, soulless type of economic conservatism because it says “look, we want to cut taxes and eliminate government. If it means that elderly people don’t get their Medicare drugs, so be it. If it means little kids go without education and health care, so be it.” Well, that might be a quote pure economic conservative message, but it’s not an American message.
Now, compare that what Ronald Reagan said on the exact same topic:
If you analyze it I believe the very heart and soul of conservatism is libertarianism. I think conservatism is really a misnomer just as liberalism is a misnomer for the liberals–if we were back in the days of the Revolution, so-called conservatives today would be the Liberals and the liberals would be the Tories. The basis of conservatism is a desire for less government interference or less centralized authority or more individual freedom and this is a pretty general description also of what libertarianism is.
Now, I can’t say that I will agree with all the things that the present group who call themselves Libertarians in the sense of a party say, because I think that like in any political movement there are shades, and there are libertarians who are almost over at the point of wanting no government at all or anarchy. I believe there are legitimate government functions. There is a legitimate need in an orderly society for some government to maintain freedom or we will have tyranny by individuals. The strongest man on the block will run the neighborhood. We have government to insure that we don’t each one of us have to carry a club to defend ourselves. But again, I stand on my statement that I think that libertarianism and conservatism are travelling the same path.
-Ronald Reagan
July 1975
Let me repeat that one more time in bold print… “I believe the very heart and soul of conservatism is libertarianism.”
The Problem With No Real Solution for America
Conservatism, in it’s modern form in American politics, is a philosophy that does not become outdated. It is one that cannot be redefined or changed to fit the times, nor can it be updated to meet the times one lives in. It is a set of values and principles that are applied to the problem, not an economic philosophy, or a social theory. Conservatism is limiting the functions of the federal government, not fixing it. It is a system of restraints against the natural tendency of government to expand in the direction of absolutism.
Goldwater said, “The time will come when we entrust the conduct of our affairs to men who understand that their duty as public officials is to divest themselves of the power that they have been given.” It is the first principles, and it is the final principles that the United States has strayed from. The aim of conservatism is not to streamline the government with policies or repair to make it more efficient, but to reduce it in size.
The only way for this party to re-unite is to end this tug of war over the direction which the party will be pulled, and to re-embrace what is at it’s philosophical core.
Although I still got a little sidetracked by the Huckabee debate in this post, it is not intended to argue over the finer points of the former governor’s philosophy or positions.
The Human Events article which I posted above states that the Social Conservative wing became a relevant force within the party because they were dedicated to “stop the slaughter of the innocents — but also to support traditional marriage, fight pornography, oppose judicial activism, and protect Second Amendment rights.” The author is correct when he states that they have been “good soldiers.” They definitely don’t deserve the harsh treatment they have received from the likes of Kathleen Parker.
However, the only way to fix what is broken is to find leaders the entire party can embrace enthusiastically (meaning all the relevant wings). Sometimes, that means letting go of candidates who we care a great deal about.
In the end, one does not have to be president to be an important piece of the overall puzzle. In the case of Mike Huckabee, he is a fine voice for the socially conservative movement, but if the 2/3 of the party feels completely alienated by him, then he is not the right person to lead the party out of the mess it is in.
The GOP needs to find common ground on both social and fiscal issues, without alienating either segment of the party.
Author’s note: Discuss freely, but please refrain from declaring that only candidate X is the answer. That means you, ACTBlog.
November 20th, 2008 at 7:28 pm
Tommy,
I am the author of the article you have referenced in the first part of this post. I am the author of My Take. I appreciate your kind words about the article. I really do try to be objective about all things political and Mike Huckabee is included in that. Just so you know, the link you have included links back to your previous post. The proper link to the article you have mentioned is below.
You are correct, I am a very staunch Huckabee supporter and I honestly believe his record has been maligned by some who are not fully aware of the great job he did in Arkansas. However, he is not perfect and he does have his faults. I honestly do not know if he will even run in 2012 or if he does, if he will be the best candidate the Republican Party could put forward. However, whomever we put forward as our candidate needs to be able to unite this party and I really am not sure Mike Huckabee, Mitt Romney, or Sarah Palin will be able to do the job.
Mike Huckabee–Doing The Right Thing
November 20th, 2008 at 7:29 pm
I’m not ActBlog anymore Tommy – that was my old site. I’m writing for a different site now.
One of the things that the party has to realize is that 2012 was not, in any way, shape, or form, a rejection of Conservative principles. It was, if possible, a declaration of support for those principles and a rejection of a party that doesn’t seem to follow any of them anymore. Barack Obama would not have won if he hadn’t promised tax cuts, Iraq wasn’t an issue, and even in one of the most liberal states, a marraige protection amendment was passed.
Unfortunately, the two wings of the party (or perhaps more accurately, those on the fringe of each wing) – which breaks down to libertarian capitalists and the Religious right seem to have forgotten about the vast middle (not to mention, largely common) ground. Most Republican are socially conservative AND economically conservative. Most Republicans oppose abortion AND high taxes. Most Republican oppose redefining the family AND spending out of Uncle Sam’s ears.
Both sides are needed for a stronger GOP, both can have their agenda as part of our policy goals, but both have to recognize that the party failed (including members of their individual camps), and that the other is essential to a strong Republican Part AND a strong country.
The split within the party could probably be represented by four of its main candidates:
Huckabee – Socially Conservative, Fiscally populist
Giuliani – Socailly Liberal, Fiscally capitalist
Romney – Socailly Conservative, Fiscally capitalist
McCain – somewhere in the middle, but far enough to the left on both issues to tick off just about every group.
Now, I only use Romney as an example here because he is who I follow – Jindal, Sanford, parhaps even Palin (though she has to build up her resume and competence) could all fill a similar role.
But until we get candidates either named Romney or like Romney, we are going to suffer.
November 20th, 2008 at 7:32 pm
Tommy,
One more thing about your article. I did mention in my own article that Huckabee had been accused of not going to Georgia to campaign, but you weren’t the only person I had in mind when I wrote that portion. I have heard that from more than one source online. I should have clarified that when I published that article and I didn’t. Sorry for the mistake.
November 20th, 2008 at 7:34 pm
Romney, of late, is definitely saying some good things (especially on not bailing out the auto industry and letting it fail). I see the future of the Party as centered on the idea of free trade and internationalism and embracing the emerging global economy – these are all issues of the future that overshadow petty differences of social values and domestic policy.
November 20th, 2008 at 7:38 pm
“and letting it fail”
Romney never advocated allowing them to go out of business, just that a managed bankruptcy might be the only way for them to make the reforms they need. He even suggested (as did I, without realizing that he did too) that the government could agree to underwrite the warrenties on the cars that Americans would buy during a big 3 BK to keep customer confidence up.
November 20th, 2008 at 7:50 pm
Romney also made it clear that they it may not actually take bankruptcy, but just concessions and restructuring similar to what would be done under bankruptcy.
Tommy, very good article. I think there are quite a few people who now look back and realize Mitt could have run much stronger against Obama. Personally, I’m pretty certain he would have beaten him, but obviously can’t prove it. I’m glad to see that some very sensible people on here who have not heretofore been favorable toward Mitt are either now with him, or moving in that direction.
I overheard three guys at breakfast the other morning bemoaning the fact that in retrospect they think Romney was the right guy. It sounded as if none of them had backed him.
November 20th, 2008 at 7:58 pm
Tommy,
“Amen” and “Hallelujah!” to your description of what Conservatism really is.
I think what you hit on here is the invisible battle between “Republicans” and “Conservatives” for the soul of the party.
Ronald Reagan and Barry Goldwater were Conservatives (who, of course, used the GOP as the vehicle for their political goals.)
George W. Bush (and the like) are Republicans.
Which way are we going to go? I am not sure yet. But let’s be honest about what is going on here.
If we return to being the advocates of Classical Liberalism, we win.
If we keep simply being Republicans, we’ll lose.
The choice remains ours.
November 20th, 2008 at 8:00 pm
I think the death of any political party comes when it becomes “All or nothing”. This leads to “Us versus them”. “Us versus them” will always kill a party.
Identity politics can and does do this sort of thing very well. One particular candidate in 2008 ran his campaign that way. When queried by a ‘Them’, he made light of their concerns, even ridiculed them upon occasion and treated them as of little matter. The ‘Thems’ confronted by a candidate that showed little to no interest in their concerns naturally turned elsewhere.
This caused the “USes” to grow angry and frustrated at the ‘Thems’ because they rejected their hero. “How dare they!”, they cried, forgetting that their champion had previously rejected the concerns of the ‘Thems’. All they knew or cared about was those rotten ‘Thems’ had denied their hero the nomination. They threw around such phrases as “a true conservative”, and “a real Republican”, or the dreaded ‘RINO’!!
All this did was split the Republicans into warring factions. It got us a candidate that few in the party particualarly cared for, and it paved the way for defeat.
What happened to the ‘Us’ candidate? He is now out promoting a book detailing how the failures of 2008 were everyone’s fault but his own. He, himself, had only been “Doing the Right Thing.” Still “Us versus them”. Still dividing.
*sigh* When will he ever learn. Is he even capable of learning?
November 20th, 2008 at 8:02 pm
#5,
Yes, but if in fact they do fail, they should be allowed to on the principle of the free market. Mitt’s father’s car company no longer exists and we should not bemoan the extinction of manufacturing dinosaurs. I take Mitt’s larger point to be that the government should not be in the business of bailing out or propping up failing companies and that free markets and global free trade should prevail.
We need to move away from a manufacturing economy into more of a consumerist economy and invest more broadly oversees and internationally. When other countries such as China have a stake in our economy, it makes international discord less likely and vigorous free trade more lively and profitable.
November 20th, 2008 at 8:03 pm
I agree with your post Tommy, and my suggestion is: How about the Constitution for common ground that Republicans can unite upon? And not just “the Constitution,” but the Jeffersonian/Jacksonian interpretation of it?
November 20th, 2008 at 8:14 pm
“We need to move away from a manufacturing economy”
No, we need to develop policies that encourage the growth of a much stronger American manufacturing sector. We need to stop importing so much from China and start making stuff here – and even exporting. Why can’t Americans make their own cell phones, computers, T-shirts, and toys?
November 20th, 2008 at 8:14 pm
Goldwater gave us the best instruction as to what the proper role of the Republican Party in American Society is:
God Bless you Senator Goldwater. Truer words were never spoken.
November 20th, 2008 at 8:16 pm
“When other countries such as China have a stake in our economy, it makes international discord less likely and vigorous free trade more lively and profitable.”
It also leaves us dependent on the economic whims of other governments who often care more about establishing a powerful spot on the world stage than they do about fair and free economic exchange. EX – china and their currency.
November 20th, 2008 at 8:17 pm
#10, “And not just “the Constitution,” but the Jeffersonian/Jacksonian interpretation of it?”
Not only would I suggest to follow the Jeffersonian interpretation of the Constitution, but conservatives would be wise to adopt Jefferson’s interpretation of social issues and religion. A good metaphor for this understanding is the “Jefferson Bible” housed at Montecello. In it Jefferson reconciles the old traditions and fables of the past with the modernity and enlightenment of his time. Conservatives would be smart to adopt a more ecumenical approach adopting newer less literal interpretations and applications of social moral standards.
November 20th, 2008 at 8:18 pm
In other words, true Equality is every man being free of the shackles that government and his fellow citizens would place upon him for the purpose of their own empowerment.
November 20th, 2008 at 8:21 pm
Conservatives would be smart to adopt a more ecumenical approach adopting newer less literal interpretations and applications of social moral standards.
Sorry – what are you saying here? That christians should have no problem with Gay Marraige and abortion?
November 20th, 2008 at 8:22 pm
MatthewK: “No, we need to develop policies that encourage the growth of a much stronger American manufacturing sector. We need to stop importing so much from China and start making stuff here – and even exporting. Why can’t Americans make their own cell phones, computers, T-shirts, and toys?”
I believe that the free market should determine this, not nationalism or misplaced national pride. Free trade and globalism has brought the world closer together. When you start to put restrictions on trade is when the free market declines. That is why are effort in Iraq and the middle east is so vital – we must ensure that free markets and trade are a truly global phenomenon and this requires building international alliances.
November 20th, 2008 at 8:25 pm
#14, Honestly that is extremely offensive.
November 20th, 2008 at 8:26 pm
“Sorry – what are you saying here? That christians should have no problem with Gay Marraige and abortion?”
No, not necessarily, although regional interpretations can assimilate many traditional and non traditional elements. Different religious faith traditions, doctrines, and institutions can assimilate together and consolidate into a wider global belief system.
November 20th, 2008 at 8:28 pm
#18,
Doug, how so? I propose the the Party show respect and tolerance to all religions, thus ecumenicalism. In fact, the exact opposite of offense to any faith tradition or belief system – maybe I am not articulating it very well. My apologies.
November 20th, 2008 at 8:34 pm
JA, I’m not talking about protectionism. But I’m really more of a fair-trade type guy.
Competition is good. Countries like China manipulating their currencies and employing other unfair policies to gain an advantage – and thus depriving US workers of the opportunity to compete fairly – is very bad.
If China played by the same rules that we were did, there would probably be millions of more manufacturing jobs in the US.
November 20th, 2008 at 8:38 pm
#20 – I think Doug read your post as (and I can’t say he got it much differently than I did), insisting that Christian conservatives adjust their interpretations of the bible, adopting a more liberal view that the Bible is more fiction than fact.
November 20th, 2008 at 8:41 pm
Let me try to define this a little better. The “universe” of global religion is vast and eclipses many of the political and policy debates that we could have. The intersection of religion and politics is complicated and multifaceted but could offer a good model for internationalism. American Catholicism extends to Rome and around the world. But around the world, that Catholicism is practiced quite differently, taking into account local, regional differences and attitudes.
Just as an example of “religion’s” “bigness”: both my preferred candidate (Fred Thompson) and the eventual democratic opponent (Barack Obama). shared the same faith in the United Church of Christ – however disparate their political opinion.
I guess what I am trying to say is that in an ironic and counterintuitive sort of way, more globalism and international hegemony could at the same time make regional heterodoxy and differences more pronounced and embraced in the wider umbrella culture of internationalism.
November 20th, 2008 at 8:43 pm
JA Pruce,
You’re pretty hung up on ecumenicalism. I remember you harping on it, like, a year ago.
November 20th, 2008 at 8:46 pm
MatthewK,
I didn’t mean to imply that, but in re-reading my post, I can understand the implication you inferred. I should have stated my thesis in a more positive approach – disparate regional and denominational differences should be accepted and embraced for the good that all of them espouse under the larger “big tent” of Republican orthodoxy.
November 20th, 2008 at 8:48 pm
#24,
Yeah Matthew, I remember having some pretty good discussions with you. You had some very well-reasoned comments and I enjoyed the exchange and your insights into modern evangelicalism.
November 20th, 2008 at 8:53 pm
Someone’s religion is meaningless to me in politics.
I see no need to accept or tolerate someone’s religion. All I need to do is accept and respect individuals regardless of their religion.
November 20th, 2008 at 9:02 pm
Martin Luther said he’s rather be lead by a wise Turk than a foolish Christian.
November 20th, 2008 at 9:05 pm
Larry,
I fixed the link you mentioned. I really liked your post, as it seemed to be written from an honest perspective, which I admire.
Kavon,
He is one of the few public servants who can come near to making me tear up when I read his essays, and I usually approach those type of things skeptically.
November 20th, 2008 at 9:07 pm
I don’t think the church that Fred Thompson belongs to is the same Church of Christ that Obama belongs to. Fred belongs to the one that started with Alexander Campbell in Southern Ky, in about 1828 I believe. It branch off into Desciples of Christ Christian, United Church of Christ, and one other one. Correct me if I’m wrong, but I’m pretty sure that Obama’s church does not come from this origination.
November 20th, 2008 at 9:13 pm
#30 Illinoisguy,
You might be right. If so, I stand corrected.
November 20th, 2008 at 10:26 pm
Tommy,
Thanks again for your kind words about my article.
November 20th, 2008 at 11:31 pm
Tommy,
Great article, I’ve come to respect your opinion a lot. I love reading your insights. I’m honestly left wondering about Mitt Romney again. With the current economic crisis, I can’t think of anyone more qualified as president who could work through the problems. Romney tried to run on a platform of Reagan’s 3-legged stool, he constantly talked about bringing all three factions together: social conservative, economic conservatives, and national security conservatives. I’m still puzzled as to why it didn’t work. DaveG acknowledged the social conservatives are still the core of the party. Huckabee alienated the fiscal conservatives. Giuliani alienated the social conservatives. Thompson failed to impress. And McCain admitted himself that he “didn’t know a lot about economics, but he had Greenspan’s book”. I’m still wondering how Romney lost in that environment when he has consistently talked about bringing those three factions together and put out countless policy papers on doing just that.
The biggest reason I can see that people use to reject him is that he ran on a different platform than he did when he was in Massachusetts. So he got the label ‘flip flopper’. Any honest person will recognize that most politicians, and even the others Romney was running against have changed their positions on lots of issues. Romney did change his position on several issues as well, but for some reason he really got hammered for it.
The question I have is given that he has retained his same position for some time now, would people be willing to look past his old positions in a future race if he runs? Maybe if he didn’t emphasize social conservatism like he did last time, but still talking about it to keep the base energized.
Are there any major objections with the stance Romney has held the past few years and probably will continue to hold as he works to build the GOP and help it’s candidates get elected?
Was it (does it continue to be) the fact that he is Mormon? The social conservatives feel like they can’t trust him because he doesn’t share their faith? I’m really quite puzzled.
November 20th, 2008 at 11:40 pm
As I have said on my own blog, time after time, my problems with Mitt Romney had nothing to do with his Mormon faith. I really don’t care to get into those reasons at this time, but trust me, Mormonism had nothing to do with it.
November 20th, 2008 at 11:46 pm
Yes, Larry, we can say it time after time, but people don’t want to listen, they’ve got their story and they’re sticking to it. I harken back to that Rasmussen poll that showed Huckabee with an 80% favorable rating among Republicans, only 5% very unfavorable. They all post her.
November 21st, 2008 at 12:01 am
An article that’s not about Huckabee…but mentions him 16 times.
November 21st, 2008 at 12:20 am
80%???? 5%???
The most recent Ras poll I found that dealt with approval ratings for Huckabee has him at 47% with a disappoval rating at 37%.
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/election_20082/2008_presidential_election/huckabee_lieberman_have_highest_favorables_among_possible_mccain_veep_choices
November 21st, 2008 at 12:35 am
It was in the top line of this poll:
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/pt_survey_toplines/november_2008/toplines_gop_november_5_2008
November 21st, 2008 at 7:49 am
JA–Nice to see you again.
I have a few comments in regards to letting the US auto industry fail.
In today’s world, when you let an industry fail, especially one requiring as much infrastructure and accumulated know-how as the auto industry, it will not come back and you not only lose that industry but future industries that could arise from it.
Letting an industry fail means allowing it to lose its competativeness. The US auto industry has gradually been failing for a long time with little being done to stop it.
In the 80’s when the Japanese auto industry was cleaning Detroit’s clock we were fortunate enough to have Reagan, Iacocca, and others who met the challenge and revived the industry but the success made the industry forget the hard earned lessons and now the industry is in horrible shape again.
The auto industry is just a symbol of what has happened throughout America. People have forgotten about quality, customer satisfaction, and sound long-term business practices that make a strong economy. Everything is about making a quick buck and then getting out before the roof caves in. There is no concern about leaving a strong business, country, organization for the next 5 years let along the next generation. That’s why we have the current financial crisis.
If America cannot figure out how to go back to those wholesome principles and revive its industries, then we are in danger of loosing more important things like our freedom and security.
The auto industry is a symbolic challenge for America to test us to see if we still have what it takes to be a great country. Letting the auto industry fail (letting it die from being uncompetative) may indeed signify the end of American leadership in fact as well as in perception.
Romney is right. We shouldn’t give up on the US auto industry, but business as usually is not a choice.
November 21st, 2008 at 8:04 am
JA–Also, free trade only works if the “trading” is going both ways and is reasonably equitable.
Unilateral free trade (we are doing the buying and they are doing the selling) is just getting your lunch eaten and is unsustainable.
As a country we need to be creating real value and getting a fair price for it on the world market or we are going to end up getting taken out behind the school house by the bullies.
November 21st, 2008 at 9:22 am
Props to Tommy and to DaveG for their two side-by-side posts here. There seems to be a general appreciation that the GOP cannot afford to orphan its different wings, but instead needs to find a way to reconcile them with one another philosophically.
The logical approach would be to support for individual liberty and responsibility in combination with federalism.
As a side note: I’ve always appreciated Huckabee more than most other libertarian-leaners. But his disquisition on libertarianism I find quite disheartening.
November 21st, 2008 at 12:56 pm
#40, quite so. To what you say: “Unilateral free trade (we are doing the buying and they are doing the selling) is just getting your lunch eaten and is unsustainable.As a country we need to be creating real value and getting a fair price for it on the world market or we are going to end up getting taken out behind the school house by the bullies.” ….I would add: For several decades unilateral free trade meant the US was doing the selling and others were doing the buying. Only when other countries got into the position to produce and sell products asked for by the market things got more into balance. Apparently the formerly big three of the car industry still haven’t got the message.
November 21st, 2008 at 1:05 pm
as narcisstic introspection keeps veering, I think David Brooks in his op-ed in the nyt 11/10/08 may well be right: “Finally, Traditionalists own the conservative mythology. Members of the conservative Old Guard see themselves as members of a small, heroic movement marching bravely from the Heartland into belly of the liberal elite. In this narrative, anybody who deviates toward the center, who departs from established doctrine, is a coward, and a sellout.
This narrative happens to be mostly bogus at this point. Most professional conservatives are lifelong Washingtonians who live comfortably as organization heads, lobbyists and publicists. Their supposed heroism consists of living inside the large conservative cocoon and telling each other things they already agree with. But this embattled-movement mythology provides a rationale for crushing dissent, purging deviationists and enforcing doctrinal purity. It has allowed the old leaders to define who is a true conservative and who is not. It has enabled them to maintain control of (an ever more rigid) movement.In short, the Republican Party will probably veer right in the years ahead, and suffer more defeats. Then, finally, some new Reformist donors and organizers will emerge. They will build new institutions, new structures and new ideas, and the cycle of conservative ascendance will begin again.”
November 21st, 2008 at 7:25 pm
#38… what those Rasmussen polls show (both in July and post-General Election– you know after all the “dirty tricks” Huck supposedly played on Mitt in getting his name off of McCain’s VP list and on Libertarians in the GOP Coalition) is that BOTH Huckabee AND Romney are liked by virtually equal members of the GOP Base and GOP-leaning Independents. If the primary comes down to these two men next time in 2012, it will be a dog-fight I think that could either divide the GOP for years to come OR energize the GOP base’s organization and fundraising for the 2012 General Election much like the Clinton-Obama race did for the Dems this year (no doubt that Obama’s organizations in IN, NC, VA, OH, PA helped him carry those states in the Fall).