The Tearing of the Conservative Fusion

Townhall.com ^ | January 6, 2008 | George Will

[Kaslin]

WASHINGTON -- Like Job after losing his camels and acquiring boils, the conservative movement is in distress. Mike Huckabee shreds the compact that has held the movement's two tendencies in sometimes uneasy equipoise. Social conservatives, many of whom share Huckabee's desire to "take back this nation for Christ," have collaborated with limited-government, market-oriented, capitalism-defending conservatives who want to take back the nation for James Madison. Under the doctrine that conservatives call "fusion," each faction has respected the other's agenda. Huckabee aggressively repudiates the Madisonians.

He and John Edwards, flaunting their histrionic humility in order to promote their curdled populism, hawked strikingly similar messages in Iowa, encouraging self-pity and economic hypochondria. Edwards and Huckabee lament a shrinking middle class. Well.

The Tearing of the Conservative Fusion By George Will Sunday, January 6, 2008 Send an email to George Will Email It Print It Take Action Read Article & Comments (393) Trackbacks Post Your Comments

WASHINGTON -- Like Job after losing his camels and acquiring boils, the conservative movement is in distress. Mike Huckabee shreds the compact that has held the movement's two tendencies in sometimes uneasy equipoise. Social conservatives, many of whom share Huckabee's desire to "take back this nation for Christ," have collaborated with limited-government, market-oriented, capitalism-defending conservatives who want to take back the nation for James Madison. Under the doctrine that conservatives call "fusion," each faction has respected the other's agenda. Huckabee aggressively repudiates the Madisonians.

He and John Edwards, flaunting their histrionic humility in order to promote their curdled populism, hawked strikingly similar messages in Iowa, encouraging self-pity and economic hypochondria. Edwards and Huckabee lament a shrinking middle class. Well.

Former Arkansas Governor Mike Huckabee removes his microphone after a interview at a hotel in Manchester, New Hampshire, January 4, 2008. Mike Huckabee's surprising victory in Iowa on Thursday turned the Republican race for U.S. president upside down, but his path to the party's presidential nomination was far from certain. REUTERS/Carlos Barria (UNITED STATES) Related Media:

VIDEO: 'I Love Iowa'

VIDEO: Huckabee Wins GOP Iowa Caucuses

Economist Stephen Rose, defining the middle class as households with annual incomes between $30,000 and $100,000, says a smaller percentage of Americans are in that category than in 1979 -- because the percentage of Americans earning more than $100,000 has doubled from 12 to 24, while the percentage earning less than $30,000 is unchanged. "So," Rose says, "the entire 'decline' of the middle class came from people moving up the income ladder." Even as housing values declined in 2007, the net worth of households increased.

Huckabee told heavily subsidized Iowa -- Washington's ethanol enthusiasm has farm values and incomes soaring -- that Americans striving to rise are "pushed down every time they try by their own government." Edwards, synthetic candidate of theatrical bitterness on behalf of America's crushed, groaning majority, says the rich have an "iron-fisted grip" on democracy and a "stranglehold" on the economy. Strangely, these fists have imposed a tax code that makes the top 1 percent of earners pay 39 percent of all income tax revenues, the top 5 percent pay 60 percent, and the bottom 50 percent pay only 3 percent.

According to Edwards, the North Carolina of his youth resembled Chechnya today -- "I had to fight to survive. I mean really. Literally." Huckabee, a compound of Uriah Heep, Elmer Gantry and Richard Nixon, preens about his humble background: "In my family, 'summer' was never a verb." Nixon, who maundered about his parents' privations and wife's cloth coat, followed Lyndon Johnson, another miscast president whose festering resentments and status anxieties colored his conduct of office. Here we go again?

Huckabee fancies himself persecuted by the Republican "establishment," a creature already negligible by 1964, when it failed to stop Barry Goldwater's nomination. The establishment's voice, the New York Herald Tribune, expired in 1966. Huckabee says "only one explanation" fits his Iowa success "and it's not a human one. It's the same power that helped a little boy with two fish and five loaves feed a crowd of 5,000 people." God so loves Huckabee's politics that He worked a Midwest miracle on his behalf? Should someone so delusional control nuclear weapons?

Speaking of delusions, Edwards seems unaware that the world market sets the price of oil. He says a $100-a-barrel price is evidence of -- surging demand in India and China? unrest in Nigeria's oil fields? No, "corporate greed." That is Edwards' explanation of every unpleasantness. Mitt Romney's versatility of conviction, although it repelled Iowans, has been a modest makeover compared to Edwards' personality transplant. The sunny Southerner of 2004 has become the angry paladin of the suffering multitudes, to whom he shouts: "Treat these people the way they treat you!" Presumably he means treat "the rich" badly -- an odious exhortation to one portion of Americans, regarding another.

Although Huckabee and Edwards profess to loathe and vow to change Washington's culture, each would aggravate its toxicity. Each overflows with and wallows in the pugnacity of the self-righteous who discern contemptible motives behind all disagreements with them, and who therefore think opponents are enemies and differences are unsplittable.

The way to achieve Edwards' and Huckabee's populist goal of reducing the role of "special interests," meaning money, in government is to reduce the role of government in distributing money. But populists want to sharply increase that role by expanding the regulatory state's reach and enlarging its agenda of determining the distribution of wealth. Populists, who are slow learners, cannot comprehend this iron law: Concentrate power in Washington and you increase the power of interests whose representatives are concentrated there.

Barack Obama, who might be mercifully closing the Clinton parenthesis in presidential history, is refreshingly cerebral amid this recrudescence of the paranoid style in American politics. He is the un-Edwards and un-Huckabee -- an adult aiming to reform the real world rather than an adolescent fantasizing mock-heroic "fights" against fictitious villains in a left-wing cartoon version of this country.

[Sola Veritas]

“Balderdash. Hunter and Thompson are pro-life.”

I don’t know enough about Hunter to comment. However, I will respectfully say this about Fred Thompson. Because of his federalist approach and beliefs, Thompson is essentially “pro-choice.” He thinks that states should decide the question. Which from a purely pragmatic point of view is the only way right now to eliminate most of abortions by letting states decide. But Thompson is consistent in his federalism. HE TRULY THINKS IT IS A STATES DECISION. This ultimately has the effect of making him pro-choice, because he would do nothing to end abortion in states that “chose” to keep it. That is NOT PRO-LIFE. Organizations like NRTL have sold out in that regard by supporting Fred. Fred is against ammending the constitution to end abortion in all 50 states.

The same is true concerning the homosexual agenda. I heard Thompson say with his own mouth that if a state wants to have homosexual marriage it is their business and not his; even if he disagrees.

That is the drawback of Federalism. While on many, many issues I agree that the states or lower is the best place to address the issue. However, when we talk about matters of fundamental significance to the general being of a nation - like the right to life, the sanctitity of hetereosexual marriage...it really needs to be decided at a national level.

I only embrace federalism as a stop-gap measure to limit abortion, but it is not the best solution.

[absalom01]

The evangelicals were getting used, and occasionally thrown a bone. Then the Reps decided they would just go ahead and cram a Guiliani or a Romney down the social cons throats. The truth is it was the corporate conservatives who betrayed the “fusion”, and are now paying the price.

Exactly. Except we'll all pay the price.

[penowa]

" The truth is it was the corporate conservatives who betrayed the 'fusion', and are now paying the price."

Since most of the corporate "conservatives" have been sending their contributions to the Democrats since way before the primary season actually kicked into gear, and have steadfastly refused to give the time of day to any conservative, what do you suppose that portends for the future of the Republican party and who do you think is actually "paying the price?"

[JasonC]

He has recently decided that he won't be called gay anymore, if only he can shout "murder all the capitalists! off with their heads!" loud and often enough.

[gidget7]

America definitely needs him, desperately. But every day it is looking more and more like America doesn’t deserve him. The media and all those who ignore and prevent his message from being heard are a clear indication of that. We who know this may have let our country hit bottom before these people wake up and save it.

[snippy_about_it]

Reading all the excellent comments here I’m thinking that of all the Republicans I think the only who will stand up to the democrats is Thompson. How many times have we wanted Bush to just put his foot down, talk to the American people and be honest about what the democrats were/are doing?

Huckabee will be similar to Bush and strive to work with them, “can’t we all just get along” behavior.

We know McCain will have one foot in their camp.

Mitt will try to compromise with them also, try to gain consensus.

I’m not sure what Hunter would do.

I’m dismissing Ron Paul altogether.

I believe Fred Thompson will call a spade a spade as he has shown in interviews. I would love to see him at the press conferences with the yahoo msm.

[DivaDelMar]

I too am a member of both groups and I resent the suggestion that they are mutually exclusive or that following Madisonian principles is somehow conflicts with Christianity. ON the contrary, they are complimentary.

[ElPatriota]

...Huckabee 1 5 5

Love your table. I wonder if you meant SC=5, NC=5, FC=1, rather?

I love you clasifications and as you say "..there is more..." it would really be nice to come up with a comprehensive questionaire in order to find out "what kind of a conservative" one is :) Especially now, that labels are being thrown around all over the place

[driftless2]

"groups"

I tend to agree with your analysis. For some reason many "experts" believe that being a strong free-market capitalist and being a good Christian is mutually exclusive. It's not. No true conservative Republican paints a picture of a depression-era nation. Huckabee is basically dismissing the great economy of the past six years. Reagan would have rejected that image and Huckabee too. I don't like Huckabee because is more of a populist than a conservative Republican. A populist is just the flip side of a demagogue.

[JSDude1]

This whole piece while fine, does’t mention at all the job that G. Bush, McCain, Guilani and Romney ARE doing to ‘redefine’ and destry the Conservative Coalition!! Very Unbecoming of the author.

[Cicero]

Yes, that’s about right. Other than Duncan Hunter, Fred is the only one who is conservative across the board.

Hopefully, Will is wrong about a new “tearing” of the conservative fusion. Conservatism in America has, since the Reagan years, always been a coalition of several factions, and these factions have always been somewhat uneasy with one another.

Which is too bad. Because it IS perfectly possible to be conservative across the board, as Fred is. And (if I may say so) as I am.

I’m a compassionate conservative. I think the poor and oppressed need help. But the worst possible way to do it is through government welfare. Government welfare PRETENDS to help the poor, but it’s only real purpose is to increase the size of the bureaucracy and to put the designated poor on the welfare rolls where they will vote for you. That is not helping the poor. Rather, it is turning them into a permanent underclass.

Fiscal conservatives and social conservatives certainly need to work together—or hang separately. And the big money country clubbers need to get on board as well, because if they want to be part of the power structure, then they need our votes.

One reason why Huckabee is doing so well is that the Republicans kicked the social conservative base and the fiscal conservative base in the teeth over the past 7 years, with out of control pork and contempt for social conservatives running for congress. So, everyone wants to pick up his marbles and go home, and the blame rests chiefly on the party, not the voters. It’s the party that drove them away. And they thought they could do it again, but supporting Romney and Giuliani. No, they can’t. If they don’t watch out, they’ll get Huckabee instead, mainly because everyone is so damned mad they aren’t thinking straight.

Fred is the only possible coalition candidate who can work with all the factions involved.

[marsh2]

There are few candiadtes for the “fiscal conservatives” and the “pro-individual liberty people like me who want self-government limited and devolved back as close to local people as possible. This allows for cultural, community and regional differences and maximizes individual freedoms and responsibility. Romney, Huckabee, Rudy are all for big federal Nanny state programs to solve our problems. They want to pull power to Washington DC. Fred is a federalist and embraces the limited government devolved to the local level.

[hellbender]

Yes, being in the House is a handicap. But Obama is now the leading Demonrat candidate, and his whole career is: 1) backbencher in IL legislature and 2) a completely undistinguished 1/2 term in the Senate. A single speech before the last Demon convention put him on the map. Most people wouldn’t know Fred Thompson either, except for his acting career. Hardly anyone outside AR knew who Huckabee was. Jimmah Carter and Bill Clinton were obscure Southern governors, also.

[kalee]

Edwards grew up in SC not North Carolina. He just stayed here after college, but we’d love to give him back.

[gitmo]

Like Job after losing his camels and acquiring boils, the conservative movement is in distress. Mike Huckabee shreds the compact that has held the movement's two tendencies in sometimes uneasy equipoise. Social conservatives, many of whom share Huckabee's desire to "take back this nation for Christ," have collaborated with limited-government, market-oriented, capitalism-defending conservatives who want to take back the nation for James Madison. Under the doctrine that conservatives call "fusion," each faction has respected the other's agenda. Huckabee aggressively repudiates the Madisonians.

Wrong. It's not Huckabee but all the GOP candidates. None of them are conservatives. They are PARTIAL conservatives. When the conservative voters are faced with a slate of candidates, each of whom is a schizophrenic conservative they are forced to select the one that matches their personal set of priorities within conservatism.

A major part of the problem is ignorance within the movement. Many of us are unable to discern conservative principles when they are couched in new issues. So they fail to recognize the LIBERAL aspects of their favored candidate. And every one of these candidates in the GOP is a LIBERAL to one extent or another.

The problem comes down to determining which candidate is conservative on the issues that are most urgent and most important to us. The WOT is obviously an urgent issue. Abortion is important, but no more urgent than it has been since the 70's. Protecting our borders is important and urgent, in light of the WOT. Protecting marriage shouldn't even be a Federal issue, but the reciprocity clause and the actions of activist judges is forcing it out. Protecting the recent gains in tax policy is urgent because of the expiring legislation.

Lacking a true conservative in the mix, how do we choose?

That is what is fracturing the movement and the party. The fact that we don't have a conservative option on the ticket.

[Clintonfatigued]

“We must unite behind a candidate that is at least acceptable to all the major factions, and who also has a reasonable chance to run an effective, winning campaign in the general election.”

Sounds like Fred Thompson to me.

[2ndDivisionVet]

A House Divided Will Not Stand
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1949161/posts

[pacpam]

Fred gets my check next to his name. When a person starts assigning to government the directives of their religion, then the line of separation has been crossed. Social justice is a religious burden, not one for the government.

[hellbender]

Hunter definitely favors a Right to Life amendment. However, that would take years to get approved, if it were adopted at all. It could be plausibly argued that Thompson's strategy will save more babies quicker, IF the Supreme Court would overthrow Roe v. Wade, thereby throwing things back to the states. Most of the Repubs. favor getting the SCOTUS to undo Roe, and some like Hunter would be a cinch to appoint the pro-life judges who would do that.

Anyway, Thompson deserves great respect for his reverence for the Constitution and federalism. That's something completely lacking in all the Demonrats, and many of the Republicans (Bush, for example, has trashed federalism with things like the No Child Left Behind), and something we desperately need in this country.

Whatever you think of Thompson's position, you can be sure it is the result of serious thought and personal conviction. It is not some kind of wimpy "compromise" position.

[Alkhin]

And a wholesale Federal ban overriding any input from the states is constitutional in your eyes? Im sorry, I am as prolife as you can get - but that idea SUCKS just as hard as the Roe v Wade decision. Just because you get a consortium of 9 judges to side with the ProLife movement doesn’t make it right or constitutional. Apparently the branch of Christianity you practice doesnt include the idea of Free Will.