Republicans at a Fork in the Road

Following on the previous post, let's return for a moment to the "Movement 2.0" conversation. Consider these two points from Soren Dayton's post about possible ways forward for the GOP coalition:

Another option would be to continue to play for the working class, as Bush so incredibly succeeded in 2004, with "the party of capital" winning the white working class vote by 23%. The problem is that we lost a bunch in 2006, and we are unlikely to succeed in 2008. However, that would be the strategy of the Sams Club Republican advocates....

Another option would be the resurgence of a reformist movement in the GOP. This would be a strategy for holding on to the upper-middle class and appealing to students. There would be process reforms like earmark reform, which is clearly a Republican issue, and ethics reform, which could be. There are more complicated parts like redistricting, which is a Republican issue in California, but Democratic in places where GOPers lose from it. There’s actually a natural technological niche here with things like the Sunlight Foundation, Ruffini’s open API stuff, etc. There is a historical antecedent in the TR Progressive movement, and it doesn’t damage the existing coalition too much. Right now, this is a post-partisan issue rather than a partisan one. But once the Democrats take charge, it will quickly become a partisan one. It is already starting. In fact, we could use the cover of a Hillary Clinton presidency to co-opt the anti-Hillary anger into a constructive direction.

Dayton says he favors the latter approach, though he concedes it may be "too post-partisan" for many conservative activists. He also hints at melding a reformist politics onto a redoubled pro-war line.

There's no doubt that pro-war voters are a crucial component of the Republican base right now, though while Dayton sees this constituency as "part of the answer" for the GOP coalition, there's also the possibility that they are part of the problem for Republicans, forcing the party's candidates into a hard-line position that repels mainstream voters (including critical constituencies like Hispanics and young voters).

But let's broaden the frame. Dayton has a series of very interesting posts on the subject of conservative renewal. In one, he observes:

[T]he deeper problem is that we need to re-evaluate and re-configure our core issues so that they appeal to 60-70% of the American people. After all, and as I have noted, you cannot win elections without independents. Right now the Dems are winning because the GOP is not competing. "You can’t beat something with nothing."

The problem is how to get to that 60-70%. It seems that, among the brighter young conservative activists, two broad approaches are emerging, and right now they are competing against each other.

Here's how Reihan Salam defined them:

I see two ways to do this: a moralistic domestic reformism that ties together the applied neoconservatism of welfare reform and crime-fighting, the social conservatism of moving to reduce the number of abortions (through restrictions or abortion alternatives) and income-splitting and other marriage-friendly and family-friendly measures, and a civic nationalism that emphasizes America's common culture and the central importance of assimilation and integration....

Or War on Terror nationalism, which focuses on the defeat of America's enemies to the exclusion of domestic issues.

Right now, WOT nationalism is surprisingly potent, certainly in the Republican primary race. In part, this is a function of the collapse of the GOP's big tent. My sense is that the shelf-life of War on Terror politics is limited. Over the long term, I think a commitment to WOT nationalism will shrink the Republican Party.

Dayton essentially makes the contrasting case in a series of posts criticizing Mike Huckabee for the candidate's nativism, economic populism, and isolationism. If Dayton seems to favor a combination of "post-partisan" reformism, libertarian-esque economic policies, and something like the "war on terror nationalism" Salam identifies, Huckabee apparently represents the specter of "Buchanan/McGovern Republican[ism]," which would amount to "isolationism, protectionism, and "'culture war.'"

This is where I begin to put words in mouths, creating oppositions where the original authors might be more inclined to look for nuance, but let's take all this discussion as an opportunity to outline two broad possible futures for the right's coalition.

One is something like "moralistic domestic reformism," which would meld a slightly softened form of social conservatism to a right-wing version of economic populism. The other is a kind of libertarian pro-war nationalism with an added focus on procedural reform issues. We've seen how critics of each approach might characterize them. It's probably safe to say that inasmuch as there is a presidental candidate to represent each tendency, it's Huckabee for the former and Giuliani for the latter.

It's difficult to escape old paradigms. Dayton cites James Antle's warning that "the fusion of economic populism and social conservatism has generally been a losing strategy in Republican politics," even while noting that "there are fewer economic conservatives in the party than there used to be." The concept of fusionism itself has come under increasing scrutiny in recent years; conservatives seem torn between declaring the old fusionism outdated and reminding themselves of the inherent value of the concept itself. Yet if the balance has been thrown -- if there is no longer equal weight between fiscal and social conservatives -- can fusionism really mean anything at all? Does it make sense to speak of a "new" fusionism, or was there only ever one kind of fusionism -- one which expired when the balance of forces it expressed began to shift?

In one sense, it's unfortunate that Giuliani and Huckabee enter this race with such a disparity in resources -- it would be fascinating to watch the battle between them develop along these ideological lines. Of course, there's an excellent chance that neither man will win the Republican nomination. It's possible that GOP voters either don't recognize, or simply aren't willing to pursue, the large-scale philosophical questions currently confronting the Republican party and the conservative movement.

Labels: conservative futures, conservatives, Mike Huckabee, Reihan Salam, Rudy Giuliani, Soren Dayton

  ¶ Posted by Paul Curtis 10:49 AM 1 comments

  Huckabee Would Abolish Birthright Citizenship

Cross-posted at The Right's Field.

Soren Dayton observes that Mike Huckabee seems to have flip-flopped on immigration. Whereas at one time Huckabee endorsed comprehensive immigration reform and said that opposition to such reform was "driven by just sheer racism," now he has indicated that he would abolish a core American principle: birthright citizenship:

" ‘I would support changing that. I think there is reason to revisit that, just because a person, through sheer chance of geography, happened to be physically here at the point of birth, doesn’t necessarily constitute citizenship,’ he said. ‘I think that’s a very reasonable thing to do, to revisit that.’ "

This is a naked appeal to the sheer racism of the kind of people who rant about "anchor babies," and while Huckabee may see an immediate political advantage in it -- as Dayton notes, it's just the kind of thing that'll help him pull in the Paul/Tancredo crowd -- it undermines his core utility to the GOP.

The reason I've long considered Huckabee so dangerous to Democrats, besides his personal charm and speaking skills, is that his politics represent the best chance for Republicans to rebuild an enduring majority coalition. As a Baptist minister who speaks the social justice language of the emerging constituency of liberal and moderate evangelicals, he's in a position to secure and expand the evangelical vote for Republicans just when the party is in danger of losing its advantage there. And his "Main Street over Wall Street" rhetoric, combined with his defense of government and his willingness to talk (somewhat) honestly about taxes (FairTax aside), is perfectly in tune with the American mainstream, who remain uninterested in the fiscal conservative orthodoxy to which most Republican candidates feel they have to chain themselves. If Barack Obama is trying to run to the center and move it left, Mike Huckabee is trying to run to the center and move it right.

But if Huckabee is going to violate his own religious beliefs and sell himself out to the nativist crowd, he risks surrendering all these advantages. Anti-immigrationism, as intoxicating as Republicans find it, is the route to a long-term GOP minority, not a majority. Maybe Huckabee is eager to consolidate whatever gains he achieved in Ames by going after cheap support. But that support will come at a dear long-term cost for Huckabee and his party.

Labels: 2008, immigration, Mike Huckabee, Presidential election

  ¶ Posted by Paul Curtis 11:36 AM 0 comments

  The Huckabee Menace

Ben Weyl at the Iowa Independent has an excellent post on the not-quite-forgotten Mike Huckabee. As I've written before at this blog, and discussed recently at The Right's Field, Huckabee has enormous talents and is probably the conservative candidate best poised to thrive in a liberal era (to thrive as a conservative, not as a Schwarzenegger-style centrist).

Ben compares Huckabee's own rhetoric to the "Party of Sam's Club" ideas advocated by Ross Douthat and Reiham Salam, and puts them in the context of this analysis by liberal pollster Stanley Greenberg:

Huge majorities want the government to be more involved in a range of issues including national security, health care, energy, and the environment. To tackle global warming, two-thirds of Americans support stronger regulation of business. When it comes to health care, the results are dramatic. By a two-to-one margin, people opt for a universal health care system rather than separate reforms dealing with problems one at a time.

The Republican field in this cycle's presidential election has been pretty void of ideas so far. But it looks like there's a pretty natural match between what Huckabee is saying and what the conservative movement's smartest intellectuals are saying. Of course, they have the albatross of "big-government conservatism" around their necks, which may sink them, but I remain convinced that this kind of synchronicity is why Huckabee, should he somehow overcome his terrible fundraising and lousy poll numbers, would be a very dangerous candidate for Democrats -- someone who, as Ben says, could "steal much of their message and cut deeply into their natural constituency of working Americans."

Labels: 2008, conservatives, Mike Huckabee, Presidential election

  ¶ Posted by Paul Curtis 9:49 AM 5 comments

  Heterodoxies, Real and Imagined

I know it's been a light couple of weeks here at A&S, and to be honest, I'm unlikely to be doing multiple posts every day for the foreseeable future. But it'll still be regular (should be around one a day, maybe two), and hopefully we'll maintain our reputation for sterling quality control (er, do we have a reputation for that?).

At any rate, E.J. Dionne has a column today that could almost be a stand-in for an A&S post, except that his thesis is a little bit flawed. Dionne discusses the various heresies of the various GOP presidential candidates (Rudy on abortion, Huckabee on taxes, McCain on campaign finance laws) and sees it as a symptom of the breakdown of conservative orthodoxy:

One dynamic forcing Republicans to new ground is the failure of the Bush presidency. This is leading liberals to insist that President Bush's tenure proves conservatism doesn't work, and conservatives to insist that Bush was never a real conservative (something they didn't say when his poll ratings were high).

Something similar happened to Jimmy Carter in 1980 when conservatives attacked him as a liberal while liberals disowned him. Carter's defeat by Ronald Reagan was followed by an extended liberal nervous breakdown. Now it's conservatives who are panicking.

But Republicans also know in their guts that their old axioms don't work anymore because their constituencies are breaking up.

The obituaries this week for the Rev. Jerry Falwell often took the form of elegies for the entire religious right. Younger and suburban evangelicals may be more or less conservative, but they do not share the ideological fervor of the Moral Majoritarians. These new evangelicals care about issues other than abortion and gay marriage. They yearn, along with almost everyone else, for problem-solving competence. [...]

If conservative ideologues were the dominant force in Republican primary politics, Giuliani would not be at the top of the pack, Gilmore the Pure would be doing better, and McCain and Huckabee would not be placing bets on pragmatism and political reconciliation. Yes, every Republican still wants to be called a "conservative." But they are all feeling pressure to pour new wine into that old vessel because it's almost empty. And Democrats beware: A less orthodox Republican Party would be a lot more popular.

I agree with Dionne's last assertion, and on a general level I think he is seeing the same crisis in the conservative movement that I'm seeing, but I don't think he's getting the nuances quite right - and they're important nuances.

It would take more than just the collapse of the religious right to bring down the conservative ideological edifice. Dionne's one example of deviation from an economic conservative line consists of Huckabee's defense of his own record on taxes. But I think that what's going on here is something rather different than what Dionne sees.

Christopher Orr's critique of Dionne's article is instructive:

[T]he idea that the heresies (most of them minor) on display in South Carolina somehow represent the GOP candidates' efforts to rethink party ideology seems, well, wrong. For the most part, they're exactly what they appear to be: The candidates' efforts to deal with (and, wherever possible, minimize) their inconvenient political baggage.

As Dionne notes, Huckabee may have raised taxes as governor of Arkansas, but he still pitches himself as a fiscal conservative who cut taxes "94 times." Giuliani has only embraced his pro-choice past because his earlier efforts to finesse it away were such an abject failure. As for Romney, he defended a federal role in education because he was specifically asked whether, in light of his many convenient ideological conversions (on abortion, gay rights, etc.), he'd had any conversions that might hurt him with the base. Defending No Child Left Behind seemed a better bet than admitting that he's a shameless, flip-flopping opportunist. Really, the only candidate who proudly defended his apostasy was McCain on torture.

Far from being characterized by the kind of freethinking, let's-reinvent-the-party spirit Dionne seems to describe, the GOP primary has thus far been a race to the right on almost every issue: McCain suddenly recognizing the advantages of tax cuts for the rich, Romney reeducating himself on fetal rights, and of course everyone (with the exception of fringe candidate Ron Paul) embracing a war that, while ever-more unpopular with the public at large, is still a rallying cry for the GOP base.

Let's consider Huckabee again. The former Arkansas governor is saying what he's saying about taxes precisely because he's on the defensive against enforcers of conservative orthodoxy. That's why he emphasizes the "94 tax cuts" claim; his refusal to renounce all tax increases comes across more as a self-defense strategy than anything else -- an attempt to avoid complete capitulation, which would make him look weak. In fact, I think Huckabee would have a sound strategy for success in a general election if he were to more strongly emphasize his disagreements with economic conservative orthodoxy, but as he well knows, the Club for Growth won't let him.

But here's the nuance that I think both Dionne and Orr miss. Giuliani's refusal to submit to the abortion litmus test is substantively different -- very different -- than any of the other "heresies" under consideration here. The issue is precisely what Dionne aluded to when he pointed out (as I did the other day) the waning power of the Christian right.

There is, on a general level, a crisis in the conservative movement. At the same time, though, it isn't a question of anybody "rethinking" anything. The chaos on the right is operating differenly in a theoretical fashion than it is in a practical fashion. That is, nobody can sort out to what extent the crisis is a matter of discredited ideas, and to what extent it's a matter of weakened institutions.

The difference between the social conservatives on the one hand, and the economic conservatives on the other, is crucial here. The various candidates continue to pander mindlessly to both sides because they're mostly too blinkered and mediocre to notice that, suddenly, the enforcers of some conservative orthoxies are a lot weaker than others these days.

Here's what I think, tentatively, is beginning to happen: Rudy Giuliani's break with the anti-abortion line is, as I've said, the only truly heterodox move by a major Republican candidate in a long time. The economic conservatives are happy enough with Rudy, and they see him as the most electable Republican -- probably the only electable Republican -- next fall. The conservative intellectuals, who mostly stick with the economic side of the movement (since that's the side that finances them, and since they generally aren't the types to sign chastity pledges themselves), also dig Rudy for what they see as his war and terror cred. And the economic conservatives and the intellectuals perceive that, suddenly, it's possible for a candidate to leave the whole abortion thing behind. So if that's what they think he needs to do, tactically, they'll support him.

What this means is that, after several years now of complaining about the effects of the Christian right on their party, economic and intellectual conservatives are finally beginning to leave the fundamentalists behind. And they seem to be positively giddy about it.

It's still very early and difficult to forecast this stuff. But I'll try to document it going forward.

Here's the grand irony, though. As the rise of the moderate evangelicals saps the enforcement power of the social conservatives on Republican candidates (even while drones like Mitt Romney fail to see it), the economic right, by default, becomes more powerful within the movement. Thus Rudy, who rejects the core social conservative tenet, is still a frontrunner, while a skilled politician like Huckabee is hobbled for being insufficiently zealous about tax cuts.

But while Rudy could somehow coast to the White House on the hero-worship factor alone, it's Huckabee who represents the more potent forumula for a future Republican party. I would bet my cats that a formula of moderate-conservative religiosity (with a self-help sheen) plus a willingness to acknowledge a positive role for government is much more appealing to the American public over the long run than tough-guy pseudo-libertarianism. Even if we end up with a President Rudy -- especially if we end up with a President Rudy -- we may be watching the conservative movement destroy itself.

Labels: 2008, conservatives, economic conservatives, Mike Huckabee, Rudy Giuliani, social conservatives

  ¶ Posted by Paul Curtis 3:25 PM 0 comments

  Huckabee's Lament

PFAW's excellent Right-Wing Watch reports that Mike Huckabee is getting a little fed up with all the love and forgiveness going on between religious right leaders and the various adulterers and cross-dressers in the Republican presidential field:

Former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee, beloved by many on the Religious Right for his positions on wedge issues but dismissed as a serious presidential candidate, has spent the last few weeks deploying a seemingly desperate gambit aimed at undermining support for frontrunners Rudy Giuliani and John McCain. They should “be held to a standard of personal accountability and responsibility for their personal lives,” he said, alluding to what Vision America’s Rick Scarborough called “multiple marriages and serial adultery” among the candidates. “If Republicans in this election vote in such a way as to say a candidate’s personal life and personal conduct in office doesn’t matter,” said Huckabee, “then a lot of Christian evangelical leaders owe Bill Clinton a public apology.”

[...]

In a recent appearance in Iowa, Huckabee sharpened his “personal lives” attack, noting that “I’m specifically referencing Christian evangelical leaders who were the most vocal in saying back during the Clinton era that personal behavior, personal responsibility and character were the key factors in a president’s criteria.” He accused those leaders of selling out to the Republican Party.

Huckabee is stuck in a vicious circle: he's doing terribly in the polls because he has been unable to gain support from the leaders of what should be his base in the primaries; he has been unable to gain that support because he's perceived by said leaders as unelectable.

It continues to mystify me, and as far as I can tell, it really does all trace back to the Club for Growth's vigorous attacks on Huckabee a few months ago. Otherwise, what's not to love? He's a governor, a Baptist preacher, a star on the stump, he's been on Oprah, and he has a flair for reframing traditionally Democratic social issues within a conservative narrative. In fact, I think it's this last trait, more than the specific tax increases he approved in Arkansas, that doomed him in the eyes of the Club for Growth crowd. They've been traumatized by "compassionate conservatism," and the last thing they want is a nominee who intends to go down that road again. The tax increases only sharpened their skepticism. Thus they appplied the "unelectable" tag to him, even though there's no reason to believe he's unelectable at all. Again, the economic conservatives punch above their bodyweight in the conservative coalition.

This time, they've done Democrats a favor.

Labels: 2008, economic conservatives, evangelicals, Mike Huckabee, Presidential election, social conservatives

  ¶ Posted by Paul Curtis 2:27 PM 1 comments

  A Dark Horse Gets Darker

Wow, Huckabee's fundraising totals are really bad (via kos). Only $300,000 cash on hand.

Mr. Huckabee said his collections so far are enough to finance a shoestring campaign with a dozen staffers that is focused intensively on the early 2008 contests in Iowa, New Hampshire and South Carolina. "We’re running a very spartan operation," Mr Huckabee said. He acknowledged that upcoming Republican presidential debates beginning in May and this summer’s Iowa "straw poll" would be critical in determining his viability in the race, but expressed satisfaction with the response he’s getting from campaign audiences thus far. "I’m coming away from events with people signing on the dotted line" to offer support, the former governor explained.

"If we get to the point where we can’t buy the plane ticket to Des Moines," he added, "I’d say, 'Pull the plug and put this thing to bed.'"

As Markos notes, the NRSC might try to encourage him to pull the plug sooner rather than later, if they think they can get him into the race against Pryor.

So far, it looks like nothing has come of the Council for National Policy's deliberations about whether to try to organize conservative support behind Huckabee. At this point, Gingrich and Thompson have to appear as the most viable conservative candidates. Not looking good for the Huckster - or for Sam Brownback, for that matter.

Labels: 2008, conservatives, Mike Huckabee, Presidential election

  ¶ Posted by Paul Curtis 10:19 AM 1 comments

  Huckabee: Still on the Radar

I missed this post from the American Scene when it went up on Tuesday, but it's worth a read. As you may recall, your loyal blogger was quite impressed by the performance of one Mike Huckabee, late of Arkansas, now an inexplicably-dark horse in the Republican presidential race. Despite his bludgeoning by the Club for Growth, I've had a hard time seeing why a candidate with his manifest skills isn't doing better in a cycle when conservatives all seem to be grumbling about how there's nothing good on the menu.

So anyway: Ross Douthat notes, first of all, that the reason might be related to the fact that it seems to be mostly liberals who find Huckabee so fascinating. And yet: let us not forget the subplot wherin Paul Weyrich and the "secretive" (in the sense of being "secretively publicity-seeking") Council for National Policy have been embarked on a quest for a real hero. Now, it seems, the storylines may be about to come together:

Some heavyweights within the Council for National Policy and other conservative coalitions are weighing an effort to galvanize behind a socially conservative second-tier candidate, such as Huckabee or Brownback, in an attempt to catapult him into the top tier. "There is a very strong feeling that we have to assert ourselves or we're going to end up with somebody we can't support," says Paul Weyrich, a longtime conservative activist and cofounder of Moral Majority. Weyrich says Christian right leadership is currently split "around fifty-fifty" over whether to pursue such a plan or to adopt an every-man-for-himself approach, in which activists would gravitate toward the candidate of their choice.

Ah, says Douthat: but the plot is somewhat thicker than that:

The trouble, of course, is that Huckabee isn't the only second-tier, socially-conservative candidate in the race, and while he might be a more plausible nominee than Brownback - sure, he has no foreign-policy experience, but neither does the man who's going to be the Democratic nominee - the two are going to be lumped together in just about every national-media account for the next six months, which will mean that they'll have to look for ways to subtly tear the other down, and use up valuable time that could be spend going after the big three in the process.

And don't forget Jim Gilmore!

Huckabee might need a bold move to "step up to the A-League": a Feech La Manna card game to crash - risky as that can be. I think that's what the Huckster was trying to do by endorsing the flat tax, which is a big plus with the conservative crank base, but a big risk in a general election. At any rate, it certainly hasn't been enough to propel him into the top tier.

Douthat also notes Michael Scherer's description of Huckabee as "a sort of Dr. Phil-meets-Ned Flanders for the political arena." This may the governor's real problem.

Still, it's worth watching to see whether Weyrich and the CNP can make something out of Huckabee. Some analysts are arguing that the tectonic plates within the GOP are shifting in favor of Giuliani - that social conservatives may not need their "own" candidate this time around. I'll look at that debate later this afternoon. But if that argument is wrong, the result may be something of a rebirth for the born-again Huckabee.

Labels: 2008, Mike Huckabee, Presidential election, The American Scene

  ¶ Posted by Paul Curtis 12:38 PM 0 comments

  First Thing You Learn Is You Always Got to Wait

When we last saw Paul Weyrich, he was urging social conservatives to wait and see whether a "real" conservative candidate would emerge, rather than jumping on the electability bandwagon with one of the unappealing frontrunners.

The New York Times reports today on the deliberations of Weyrich and his peers in the conservative illuminati at the Council for National Policy, the most publicity-seeking "shadowy" organization in America. Seems they're still waiting for the messiah. And the situation is unnerving them:

[I]n a stark shift from the group’s influence under President Bush, the group risks relegation to the margins. Many of the conservatives who attended the event, held at the beginning of the month at the Ritz-Carlton on Amelia Island, Fla., said they were dismayed at the absence of a champion to carry their banner in the next election.

Reading between the lines, it's interesting to note that, as it enumerates the Council members' complaints, the Times piece leads with denunciations of McCain and Guiliani, relegating Romney to a second tier of conservative discontent. Is this because Romney is a second-tier candidate, or because he doesn't offend them quite as much as the other two?

Here's another interesting little tidbit:

Finally, in a measure of their dissatisfaction, a delegation of prominent conservatives at Amelia Island tried to enlist as a candidate Gov. Mark Sanford of South Carolina, a guest speaker at the event. A charismatic politician with a clear conservative record, Mr. Sanford is almost unknown outside his home state and has done nothing to prepare for a presidential run. He firmly declined the group’s entreaties, people involved in the recruiting effort said. A spokesman for Mr. Sanford said he would not comment.

At the National Review recently, Mallory Factor praised Stanford for his supposed ability - apparently rather unique among governors - to avoid raising taxes. Sanford's clearly not going to jump in this time around - unless he's got some stunt up his sleeve - but is somebody worth keeping an eye on as a potential star on the conservative bench.

And speaking of governors with star potential, Mike Huckabee was said to be lurking about during the Council's deliberations. The Huckster, as we have learned, is a slick social conservative with powerful political skills (albeit with a rather strange intepretation of history) - but he's persona non grata on the right because of his tax-raising record in Arkansas. But it seems he's ready to be born again:

Mr. Huckabee said he was now leaning toward signing a pledge not to raise income taxes that is presented to all the candidates by Mr. Norquist of Americans for Tax Reform.

Mr. Norquist said he remained open to any of the three candidates who spoke to the council or to Mr. Romney. He argued that with the right promises, any of the four could redeem themselves in the eyes of the conservative movement despite their past records, just as some high school students take abstinence pledges even after having had sex.

“It’s called secondary virginity,” Mr. Norquist said. “It is a big movement in high school and also available for politicians.”

Of course, we all know how these virginity pledges usually work out.

Labels: 2008, Council for National Policy, Mike Huckabee, Paul Weyrich, Presidential election, social conservatives

  ¶ Posted by Paul Curtis 9:56 AM 2 comments

  Days of Our Republican Lives

Two stories via TPM Cafe's Election Central:

The Politico's Jonathan Martin reports that Jerry Falwell has invited John McCain to attend - but not speak at - a reception during the National Religious Broadcasters Convention [Here's a very interesting Harper's article about a previous NRB Convention] next week in Orlando. Mitt Romney will also be there, but of course it's the McCain invite that's more notable. Falwell himself, however, is taking pains not to imply an endorsement:

Falwell's office at Liberty University, however, sought to downplay the event, saying that the pastor may not even show. "This is not Dr. Falwell's showing support for [McCain's presidential bid] at all," said Jessica Tucker, a spokeswoman for the pastor. "This is really just a name on the invitation. He was asked to be listed and he said yes."

Asked why Falwell wouldn't attend a reception on which he is listed as one of six co-hosts, Tucker pointed to the impending winter weather.

When further pressed, Tucker added that Falwell was also planning to wash his hair that night.

Meanwhile, Hotline reports that Mike Huckabee has picked up a couple of key endorsements in an early primary state: former South Carolina First Lady Iris Campbell and her son Mike, of the clan known as the "First Family of South Carolina Presidential Politics," have signed on; Iris will serve as Honorary State Chair of Huckabee's exploratory committee, while Mike will serve the campaign as a "Senior National Advisor."

The Hotline piece points out that "Since [1980], no Republican has won the nomination or the presidency without first winning in South Carolina and having Campbell family’s support."

Labels: 2008, Jerry Falwell, John McCain, Mike Campbell, Mike Huckabee, National Religious Broadcasters, Presidential election

  ¶ Posted by Paul Curtis 4:18 PM 0 comments

  Huckabee: Conservative or What?

Those looking for evidence of a continuing strain in the libertarian-social conservative alliance would do well to consider the right's decidedly lukewarm reaction to Mike Huckabee. Jennifer Rubin has a good summary of the debate at the National Review.

Rubin suggests that "most Americans know him for his remarkable effort in losing 110 pounds and his success as a marathon runner," which surprises me, as I'm not sure that most Americans know anything about Huckabee at all - if they did, he'd probably be more of a star. At any rate, Rubin goes on to explain the Arkansas governor's appeal to social conservatives:

He says without hesitation: “On the social issues, my political viewpoint is based on my core values and spiritual convictions. While I am deeply pro-life, I also believe that our commitment to life doesn’t stop at birth, but instead to do everything possible to help all children have what they need to realize their full potential.” Maggie Gallagher [last seen 'defending marriage' at the conservative summit - ed.], president of the Institute of Marriage and Public Policy, counts herself as a “fan” of the governor’s efforts to reduce “family fragmentation” and out of wedlock births and unnecessary divorce. He signed bills outlawing same sex marriage, requiring parental consent for abortion, and mandating notification by abortion providers to prospective parents that the unborn baby may feel pain. He also signed one of three state covenant-marriage laws, allowing couples to elect to marry under conditions that permit divorce only after appropriate counseling and when there has been a “total and complete” breach of the relationship.

But on the other side of the fusionist coin: while Governor Huckabee initially looked good to economic conservatives, signing a $70 million tax cut and a "Property Taxpayer's Bill of Rights," things quickly deteriorated.

By the end of his second term he had raised sales taxes 37 percent, fuel taxes 16 percent, and cigarettes taxes 103 percent, leading to a jump in total tax revenues from $3.9 billion to $6.8 billion. The Cato Institute gave him a failing grade of “F” on its fiscal report card for 2006 and an only marginally better but still embarrassing “D” for his entire term. Both as a governor and now as a presidential candidate Huckabee has declined to sign a “no tax” pledge. Recalling that Huckabee has said that he would only raise taxes if his arm were twisted, Grover Norquist of ATR responded: “He has a history of allowing his arm to be twisted and twisting other’s arms.”

He was not the poster child for smaller government. During his tenure, the number of state government workers in Arkansas increased over 20 percent. Under Governor Huckabee’s watch, state spending increased a whopping 65.3 percent from 1996 to 2004, three times the rate of inflation, and the state’s general obligation debt shot up by almost $1 billion. As Grover Norquist quipped, “We like chubby governors and skinny budgets. Not the other way around.” The massive increase in government spending is due in part to the number of new health programs and expansion of existing ones, including ARKids First, a state program to provide health coverage for 70,000 Arkansas children. Spending on ARKids alone increased 69 percent over a five-year period.

All of this, plus Huckabee's promotion of personal health initiatives like one requiring students to have their Body Mass Index measures, has seriously damaged the governor's standing with economic conservatives. Charles Murray - last seen at the conservative summit defending "small government" - put it bluntly:

“They are bad in principle, they’re a waste of money, they are of the same muddle-headed mindset as the Compassionate Conservatism of the Bush administration. That a person who advocates them might be taken seriously as a Republican candidate for the presidency just 20 years after Reagan left office is deeply depressing.”

All of which adds up to a dilemma for the conservative movement, especially considering Huckabee's considerable charm and campaigning skills.

As Darryl Hart recently observed in the latest American Conservative magazine, conservative evangelical leaders are in danger of being outflanked from the left by a new generation of religious activists motivated by issues like poverty, the environment, and health care. W. James Antle III, writing in the American Spectator, suggests that Huckabee, with Sam Brownback, is at work forging a "new religious right," which would take up those same concerns. As such, it would seem like Mike Huckabee represents an opportunity for the religious right to guard its left flank. I suppose Huckabee doesn't need to win a presidential nomination in order to do that, but the fact that a candidate with such potential is essentially being called a non-starter by the economic right suggests, once again, that the fractures in the right's fusionist coalition are real, and have real effects.

Labels: 2008, American Conservative, American Spectator, Darryl Hart, fusionism, Jennifer Rubin, Mike Huckabee, National review, Presidential election, social conservatives, W. James Antle III

  ¶ Posted by Paul Curtis 8:48 AM 0 comments

  Flat on their Faces

As I noted in the Summit report, Mike Huckabee is making support for a flat tax part of his presidential platform. So, apparently, is Sam Brownback. The flat tax seems to be something that is supported with near-religious fervor by certain parts of the conservative base, but viewed with caution by most conservative intellectuals and politicians. Not that they don't like the idea, it's just that they've been burned before.

J. Goodrich has an article at the American Prospect (for my money, the best liberal magazine going right now) that sheds some light on why even its natural supporters might be gun-shy when it comes to the flat tax: it's a fraud.

The commonly stated benefits of flat tax plans are "fairness," simplicity, and economic growth. These are plans that are usually proposed by conservatives, which might suggest to a cynical person that there is something extra for the conservatives in these plans. And there is: flat taxes would, on the whole, benefit the richest.

Under a flat tax, the wealthy would of course be less burdened by taxes than the middle classes - and the idle rich wouldn't have to pay taxes at all, since dividend and interest income wouldn't be subject to taxation. Goodrich goes on to dispense with the 'economic growth' argument, which not only lacks empirical evidence, but falls apart under the weight of its own logical contradictions. Finally, he points out, there's no reason a progressive tax has to be any less "simple" than a flat tax: all that matters is how many deductions and loopholes you allow, and that has nothing to do with whether the system is flat or progressive.

I recommend reading the whole thing. The flax tax myth didn't die with the Steve Forbes campaign, and while more rational conservatives recognize the issue as a political loser, it's too soon to rhetorically disarm: thanks to the Huckabee and Brownback campaigns, the flat tax goblin still roams the land. And Goodrich points out what the real reason for that might be:

Whatever the actual advantages of a flat income tax might be, the conservatives surely must appreciate the fact that flat taxes make government redistribution of income much, much harder. This could well be the real reason why this misguided proposal has cropped up again.

Labels: American Prospect, flat tax, J. Goodrich, Mike Huckabee, Sam Brownback

  ¶ Posted by Paul Curtis 8:36 AM 0 comments

  As the Republican World Turns

Two bits of campaign news from The Right's Field:

Family Research Council President Tony Perkins says that if Giuliani gets the GOP nod, "pro-family" Americans will sit on their hands:

"If by some chance Giuliani were to gain the Republican nomination it would set up a very similar scenario that we had last November. A unenthusiastic Republican base which will suppress turnout and set up a Democratic victory.”

Giuliani has had it surprisingly easy from the religious right so far. Dobson hasn't said much, prefering to hate on McCain. Pat Robertson actually digs him. Sure, he's not racking up the Right to Life endorsements, but neither has he inspired much intense evangelical opposition yet. But once he's in, the honeymoon comes to an end. Which may help explain why he's taking so long to actually announce.

And in other news, Huckabee suggests that if he doesn't do well in the Iowa Straw Poll this August, he's gonzo.

Labels: 2008, Mike Huckabee, Presidential election, Rudy Giuliani, The Right's Field

  ¶ Posted by Paul Curtis 12:19 PM 0 comments

  Report from the Huckabee Front

In the comments to the third part of my Summit series - the Huckabee episode - a minor discussion flared up over the odd lack of any available evidence that Martha the schoolteacher ever existed. A few of us Kossacks have done some digging and found nothing - and the Arkansas journalists we've contacted have drawn similar blanks. She's impervious to Google, Lexis Nexis, and local journalistic memory.

Which doesn't mean she doesn't exist - it's just strange. I assume the Huckabee campaign can point me in the right direction, so I'll give them a call. Meanwhile, here's an interesting little thread on the matter over at the Arkansas Times blog.

The Times post also notes this attack on Huckabee by the conservative Club for Growth. Whatever's up with Martha it does appear that the Governor has been telling some tall tales when it comes to taxes:

In his recent response to the Club for Growth’s presidential white paper on his gubernatorial record, Governor Huckabee touts his $80 million tax cut in 1997, but fails to explain the multiple tax hikes he signed or allowed to become law during the rest of his tenure, including a $377 million sales tax hike in 2004 (Los Angeles Times 02/07/04). ... “This really isn’t very complicated,” said the Club’s President, Pat Toomey. “Taxes were higher when he left office than when he entered. On balance, that makes him a tax hiker.”

The governor also wildly exaggerates his record, claiming he cut taxes “nearly 100 times,” but the Arkansas Times demonstrates the absurdity of this claim: “By claiming to have cut taxes 94 times, Huckabee fixed a standard for what is a tax cut: every little exemption, credit, deduction or tax break of any kind. By that standard every governor [over] the past 60 years cut taxes numerous times (01/30/07).

The Club for Growth, of course, is the NKVD of the anti-tax crowd, charged with purging enemies of the wingnut people from within Republican ranks. And one can't help but feel a bit of sympathy for Huckabee, who was caught in the same quandary most Republican governors find themselves in: forced to deal with the messy consequences of their own party's irresponsible federalist policies, which dump spending problems on the states where they can be ignored by Congress but not by the local statehouse. Hell, Pat Toomey was at the same Summit, soaking up the ideological deliciousness of being a purist unburdened with actual power.

Ezra Klein recently explained the problem facing Republican governors:

The Gingrich Revolution trumpeted its renewed federalism, enhancing state authority over everything from welfare to Medicaid. States can’t deficit spend, so handing them once-federal responsibilities under the rubric of a restored federalism promised to shrink the expansiveness, generosity, and responsiveness of government services. Federalist lipstick? Meet small-government pig.

But it’s not easy being a service-slashing ideologue on the state level. “Republican governors tend to be more liberal than Republican senators and congressmen,” Dreier explains. “Governors can see the consequences of federal cutbacks and unfunded federal mandates. They see the consequences of letting cities deteriorate. They have to pay for the Medicaid patients. They have to pay for the consequences of housing cuts.”

So Republican governors operate in tension with Republican congresses. They need federal appropriations to invest in infrastructure, keep their fiscal status sound, and provide popular services their party finds ideologically objectionable. As Bush’s budget director, Mitch Daniels was a supply-sider so committed that Grover Norquist named him 2002’s “Hero of the American taxpayer.” But after becoming governor of Indiana, he promptly broke Norquist’s heart by raising taxes. Daniels, a crestfallen Norquist cried, “was closing Indiana for business!” Which is to say, he was governing.

So maybe Huckabee's record is just collateral damage in the Beltway Republicans' war on reality. I can't really fault him for that.

But it sounds like he has been less than truthful about his tax record, which is a shame. We should be wary of presidential candidates prone to making up stories.

Labels: American Prospect, Arkansas Times, Club for Growth, Ezra Klein, Mike Huckabee, Pat Toomey

  ¶ Posted by Paul Curtis 8:58 AM 0 comments

  Huckabee: Scandal Already?

I don't know if this is a mountain or a molehill, so I'll just post it and let you decide.

Arkansas Josesph: Huckabee Under Ethics Violation and Possible Criminal Prosecution:

According to an AP release dated Feb 2, 2007 and posted to the todaysthv.com web site at 1:53 pm CST - the Commission is investigating a complaint from Jim Parsons of Bella Vista, Arkansas that Huckabee violated state FOIA statutes when he ordered the destruction of computer hard drives in the Governor's office before he turned the office over to the new Democratic Govenor Mike Beebe. Parson's has also filed a complaint with the Pulaski County (Little Rock) prosecutors.

Arkydem has more. Seems the Arkansas news media are not too happy with Huckabee - and not just because of broken computers. From Arkydem's diary, here's "John Brumment, the award winning and highly respected political reporter for the statewide Arkansas News Bureau":

Nevertheless, I will oblige Huckabee's request should the opportunity arise for me to speak of him. I will be careful, even if he isn't.

I will not tell reporters or civilians in other states that he was a failed governor. I will say he was an uncommonly uneven one, blending progress, compassion, detachment, meanness and irresponsibility.

I will not call him unethical, and certainly not corrupt. I will describe him as one who likes to receive gifts and sees no reason to decline them in deference to the appearances, if not necessarily the practice, of ethical conduct.

I will not call him a demagogue. I will say he is one to whom impressive words come easily and flow smoothly, even if the facts don't always match up.

I will not call him a liar. I will label him chronic hyperbolizer given to petulance, huffiness and an overly dramatic woe-is-me combativeness, one by which he always seems to see morality plays with himself as the good guy or martyr.

I will not say he turned Wayne DuMond loose. I will say Wayne DuMond got turned loose by the Parole Board during Huckabee's governorship after Huckabee said in a letter to DuMond, "It is my desire that you be released."

I will not call Huckabee unfit for the presidency. I will say I can no longer be sure how low that bar can go.

Whether or not the ethics investigation turns out to have legs, it's clear that Huckabee-Land is not quite as sunny as it seems on the stump.

Labels: 2008, Mike Huckabee, Presidential election, scandals

  ¶ Posted by Paul Curtis 5:42 PM 0 comments

  See for Yourself

NRO has online video of Newt, Apple Pie Huckabee (I suppose that works out to "Applebee"), and Larry Kudlow speaking at the Conservative Summit. Now you can sit up close and feel the action.

I didn't talk about Kudlow - he introduced Snow with a lengthy diatribe about the all-conquering Milton Friedman and the "total defeat of the left and their statist ideas." It was the first time I've ever been in a crowd that was moved to wild applause by a dis on Keynesianism.

Labels: Conservative Summit, Lawrence Kudlow, Mike Huckabee, Newt Gingrich

  ¶ Posted by Paul Curtis 9:03 AM 0 comments