Posted on 12/17/2007 7:51:52 AM PST by Ol' Sparky
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.
There is a double standard at work here. For the sake of party unity, social conservatives are being told by some, they are supposed to overlook Giuliani's public immorality and pro-abortion activism. But because the Arkansas legislature responded to a court order to spend more on education and raised the state sales tax, Huckabee is irredeemable, even though he refused to sign the final bill. Social conservatives are supposed to accept Romney's political-death-bed conversion to the pro-life position, but Huckabee's commitment to low taxes and limited government is constantly questioned, even though he has signed a no-tax-increase pledge and-alone among the candidates -- is vigorously campaigning to abolish the IRS.
So why is it that when one of our own breaks out of the pack, social conservatives are asking themselves, so many people are piling on? Part of the answer is innocent enough. Huckabee's surge comes so late in the game that most conservative leaders and many groups are committed to other candidates. The National Right to Life Committee, for instance, endorsed Thompson thinking that he would be the front runner. Instead Thompson no sooner announced his candidacy than his poll numbers began to drop, undercut by his lackluster performance on the stump and his brain freezes during the debates.
A month ago, Pat Toomey of the Club for Growth could dismiss Huckabee, then polling in the single digits, as not ready to "run with the big dogs." Now, however, with the "big dogs" all doing a fourth quarter fade, Huckabee has sprinted to the head of the pack in Iowa and elsewhere. If this continues, we will soon be treated to the spectacle of some of the erstwhile leaders racing to follow their followers.
But it is also true that social conservatives have long been regarded as the junior partner in the Republican coalition. The moneyed, secularized Republican elite distain evangelical Christians, in particular, as poorly educated and easily led. They are good enough to help with voter registration drives, hand out flyers at the mall, and vote the right way at election time. But then they are supposed to go home and let the really smart people-those who know that they only important things in life are money and power -- run things.
How many conservatives remember that Reagan was initially opposed by the big money people, and that the Republican party establishment was far from united behind his candidacy? It was a groundswell of support from Joe Sixpack and his wife that won Reagan first the nomination and then the presidency. Similarly, Huckabee's candidacy has flourished because of support from the rank and file, while a sullen party establishment looks on in stunned disbelief.
Republican kingmakers seem to have missed the deep similarities between Huckabee and Reagan that are so apparent and appealing to ordinary people. But it is precisely these similarities that explain Huckabee's sudden rise, and may well propel him into the Oval Office. What are they?
First of all Mike Huckabee, like Ronald Reagan, is a man of genuine convictions, and is entirely comfortable with himself. This comes through in his smile, in his naturalness, in his ready answers to questions.Romney, on the other hand, when asked a question, seems to be sorting through file cards to find the politick answer.
Like Reagan, Huckabee is a man of deep faith in God and in America, and is not afraid to publicly defend his beliefs. Cynical political types tend to dismiss this. The American people, who know that character counts, don't.
These traits explain why Huckabee's performance in each and every presidential debate-even the early ones, when few questions came his way-has been so outstanding. He has proven so articulate on the issues that the other candidates-watch them-are often forced to grin and shake their heads in admiration. Some, unable to help themselves, actually applaud when he finishes.
He also shares with Reagan the gift-rare for a politician-of being humorous and decisive at the same time. I am reminded of an earlier presidential debate when Walter Mondale attempted to bring up Ronald Reagan's age as an issue. "I won't use my opponent's youth and inexperience against him," the Great Communicator quipped in response.All Mondale could do was grin helplessly. Issue closed, permanently.Huckabee has the same knack of using humor to take away issues from his opponents.
Finally and most importantly, Huckabee is right on the issues. He equally and eloquently defends the right to life of the unborn, and the right to bear arms of the people. He is pushing for the abolition of that most-hated American institution, the Internal Revenue Service, and its replacement by a simply and fair levy on consumption. As a former governor, he talks about rejuvenating the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution by ceding authority back to the several states. He is a friend of Jeffersonian democracy and a foe of the centralization of power in Washington. If all this isn't Reaganesque, what is?
I knew Ronald Reagan. I once even had the honor of writing a speech for him. And I admit that Mike Huckabee does not have the same star quality about him as the late great President. Who does? But Huckabee has the same ah-shucks demeanor, the same unforced eloquence, and the same grace and good humor under pressure. And increasing numbers of ordinary Americans-the same good folks who voted for Ronald Reagan by the millions-are mighty impressed.
I can’t overlook his liberalism. Or Rudy’s or McCain’s or Romney’s for that matter.
The reason is that Mike Huckabee is a liberal.
He is to the left of Rudy on every issue but guns and life.
Well, I agree with everything he says, except Huckabee.
It’s true that the social conservatives have been willing to compromise, and generally the fiscal conservatives and the libertarians and the country clubbers are not willing to compromise. Which is what keeps undermining the conservative coalition.
But Huckabee ain’t the man to fix it. That is delusional.
Personally, as a fiscal conservative and a social conservative when it comes to abortion — I don’t think Huckabee can be supported for anything BUT his social conservatism.
* He obviously is Ron Paul-lite when it comes to the WoT.
* He would be terrible on illegal immigration
* His record as governor is not terribly good.
I don’t support Rudy, nor do I support Romney.
If any of the aforementioned (including Huckabee) made the nomination however, I suppose that I would hold my nose and vote for them. At worst they are liberals with a semblance of conservatism. Whereas the Democrat top 3 are just socialists (super-liberals — Edwards, Clinton, and Obama).
Hey, most of us want a social conservative... but he must be a CONSERVATIVE first.
Mike Pence, Tom Coburn,...NOT MIKE HuCKABEE
“Why not Mike Huckabee?”
Because (taking him just at face value) he’s a big-government micromanager who wants to tell everyone what to do just as much as Hitlery or Osama. “Social conservatism” belongs in families, congregations, and communities, and Big Government is terribly destructive of those voluntary associations.
Because he’s not conservative.
Next question.
I see the opposite. The social conservatives have little issue with Bush...it's fiscal cons and libertarians (as well as immigration hawks) in the GOP that aren't happy with him for the most part. Huckabee is all of Bush's bad traits with none of his good ones.
This is a stupid article, also filled with lies about Hucksterbees record.
“Finally and most importantly, Huckabee is right on the issues.”
.....if you’re a socialist!
At this point, Fred is about the only candidate that I don't feel BS'd on so far.
I’m just plain sick of writers making declarations that “social conservatives” want this or “Christian conservatives” want that as if we’re a monolithic voting block with a hive mentality.
Right now I’m most concerned with the security, sovereignty, and integrity of my nation. Social issues are very much on my back burner.
Interesting article. Thx for posting.
Huck is proving that they may not be monolithic, but they certainly have a large number of fools.
Which candidate doesn’t force compromise on something? I think that’s the point of the question.
People argue “but he did this and that and says he supports this...”
The problem is this...ever just have a “gut feeling” about someone? or a “BS alarm” that goes off with some people?
It doesn’t go off for Fred Thompson or Duncan Hunter - I believe those two men. Romney? I get some BS alarmism but not a lot.
Huckabee? His is a four-alarm, wake-the-dead BS alarm.
He’s not even a social conservative. He’s a pro-life liberal.
Junior has good traits? Really? What? He's good for a laugh on late night TV? He's not as far left as Al Gore? Saying Bush has good traits is sort of like saying my truck's a Cadillac because it has an engine...
No candidate suits voters perfectly, and it's a reasonable question. One has to balance the "why's" against the "why-not's" for each candidate.
All this social-conservative vs. fiscal-conservative is a bunch of hog wash.
True social-conservatism dictates fiscal-conservatism, as it devalues massive centrally managed programs.
There’s only one form of true conservatism, and it embodies both social and fiscal forms.
Unfortunately, none of the current major candidates fit this bill.
“Why not Mike Huckabee?”
Because he’s a malicious little goober.
What Presidential primary candidates in the last 30 years have “fiscal country clubbers” not compromised on?
What are the % of these “fiscal country clubbers”, vs social conservatives?
And who has the most power?
And he may flip on that. As for life he has been on both sides as to whether it is a federal are a states right issue.
And he may flip on that. As for life he has been on both sides as to whether it is a federal are a states right issue.
BTTT
I’m just at a loss this election cycle. The only guy I felt any passion for was Fred Thompson, who seems more like a stubborn mule “doing it his way.”
Because the author is a flat out liar and a small minded rube. Hucksterbee has a liberal record. When is the last time we had a guy both weak on crime and weak on communism? I can't even recall.
That is a load of crap. Huckabee certainly is the right of Giuliani in regard to the homosexual agenda. He would nomination judges that would overturn Roe and thus be far more conservative than the liberal judges Giuliani appointed in New York. He has likely done more to cut taxes and reform the tax code than Giuliani.
He isn't any worse than Giuliani, who was filing lawsuits in New York protecting illegals, on that issue.
Yep. Tax cuts, WOT and pro-life.
Saying Bush has good traits is sort of like saying my truck's a Cadillac because it has an engine.
Then you must not like the tax cuts, WOT and you must be anti-life. Explains everything.
I won’t vote for him. He’s no conservative.
The point of the article and my point in posting it is that the same types demanding social conservatives sellout their principles by supporting Giuliani and Romney and pitching a fit and refusing to vote for Huckabee.
There is an unacceptable double standard. Standing on principle cuts both ways. If one believes in compromise, that should cut both ways as well.
The reality is the only chance a Republican candidate has or being elected is if he or she is strong on social issues. Giuliani and Romney are both unelectable and/or have led to a Huckabee, who is liberal on whole host of issues, and might be unelectable as well.
The Republicans need to put forth conservative candidates that can appeal to social conservatives if they want to win the White House.
That double standard needs to end.
If the Republicans want to win the White House, than they need to give us a nominee that is both fiscally and socially conservative. If it can't, it deserves to lose.
Silly me, I thought Congress passed the legislation on tax cuts. I suppose we can be thankful he didn't veto them (even though enough votes were in Congress to override a veto). But let's not forget what George has 'helped' bring us in government spending over the past 6 years either. Or since that aspect is bad, should that be blamed on Congress alone?
The War on a Tactic is quickly becoming a farce (well it has been for awhile some fence straddling conservatives are just waking up to it though). Not only are US forces not engaged in a War on a Tactic, current policy is creating more anger in the Middle East, not less
Pro-life? That's not really a standard is it? Most Republicans (except maybe St. Rudy of 9/11) are pro-life..
His treachery in repeating enemy and DNC propaganda about our missions in two war theaters is enough, he is not a wartime President.
No more compassionate conservatism, thank you.
Lots of buzz for the Huckster, but none for Hunter or Thompson. The MSM has them on ignore.
“If the Republicans want to win the White House, than [sic] they need to give us a nominee that is both fiscally and socially conservative.”
The Republicans don’t “give” anybody a nominee. Individual Republicans run for office or not, and we the voters are left to choose between those who have decided to run. That’s the process, and for all its faults, it’s certainly better than the party telling us who will or will not be on the primary ballot.
Real religious conservatives oppose sins like armed robbery (confiscatory taxation).
Pardons and coddling illegals are “social” issues if you ask me, he isn’t even a real social conservative. He’s a pro-gun, anti-abortion liberal!
All the slick of Willy,
all the corn-pone naiveté of Jimmah
with an R after his name.
Good article. Thank you!
They would all make great democrats.
Mike Huckabee believes that Americans are causing Global Warming.Global Warming is a socialist lie.
Mile Huckabee is one of Lenin's Useful Idiots.
Oh, then there's the typical Arkansas politics of payoffs, threats and terminations when favors are not paid, etc., etc.
Mike Huckabee is not a conservative. He's a populist. And a populist will shift according to what is popular.
Vote Huckabee and Destroy Pornography!
Well, guns and life are pretty big issues. I’m also pretty sure Rudy is to his left on gay issues. Fred T is the only consistent conservative among the leading contenders.
What color is the sky on your planet? The GOP had six years in charge, and they taxed and spent in a manner that would make a drunken sailor look like Ebenezer Scrooge.
More fundamentally, fiscal conservatives should be the ones in charge, since their agenda is the one that is actually relevant to governance. An individual can simply not watch offensive movies and not engage in lascivious sexual practices, but an individual cannot simply refuse to pay excessive taxes or disregard overly intrusive regulations.
Appealing to politicized social nannies (i.e. people who want the guvmint to "clean things up" so they don't have to get off their arses and lead by persuasion and example) is like appealing to habitual reliefers (i.e. people who want the guvmint to "send a check" so they don't have to get off their arses and work for a living). It can be done, but the party that does it isn't "conservative".
If you believe that, you're incredible naive about the political process.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.