The GOP's true face

But is Novak supporting Rudy Giuliani? I am not too sure that Giuliani could really be deemed a strong conservative even on economic issues--he strikes me as a moderate all around. Except perhaps for his views on the war on terror.

The post raises some interesting questions, but I am cautious about jumping to too many conclusions based upon Novak's article. To be fair to Novak, he has a reputation of taking a fairly detached and critical view of his own.

Also--while I am by no means a libertarian, Huckabee's statements do strike me as open to some criticism. The "Club for Greed." Okay--one thing to disagree with supply side economics--for a conservative, that label sounds a bit sensationalist. Also, global warming may very well be a moral issue, if it is as real a threat as some pose--but a "biblical issue?" It may be a natural law or moral issue, but perhaps the underlying point is that making it a "biblical issue" does not provide much common ground upon which we can have a conversation. Likewise, such a statement strikes me as an attempt to use an authoritative "show stopper" to get one's way.

Don, I'm not saying Huckabee is beyond criticism. No candidate is. What is so telling about Novak's criticism, though, is that he doesn't just slam Huckabee for being unorthodox on economics; it's that his economic unorthodoxy gets Huckabee read out of the conservative movement. I don't recall that Giuliani's lack of GOP orthodoxy on social issues elicited the same heretic-smiting zeal. It's revealing of a certain mindset, is all. Though I don't know where Novak stands on Ron Paul, I do find it interesting that the GOP mainstream is willing to be "big tent" on social issues, but it won't tolerate deviation on the Iraq War, or on its version of free-market economics.

This simply illustrates in sharp detail the disconnect that David Kuo wrote about last year in his book. The core conservative movement in the GOP is all about economic issues, and simply uses the social issues as a draw to bring the evangelical Christians on board. If you go back to the great GOP victory in 1994 you will see that the first thing they acted on once they took office was the economic issues. Social issues were left for later, or never taken up.

Novak's column is a clear admission that David Kuo was right.

Lets not get too worked up over this. Bob Novak has been throughout his career an individual voice. A combative rascal who makes good TV. I like watching him. The prince of darkness but hardly the voice of conservatism. I disagree with him on economic matters as much as Novak but the tent of conservatism I reside under has space for Huck. Hey Rod, if I remember correctly, I chastised you here on your blog for saying someone wasn't a "real" conservative. Its what happens when people get emotional and Novak is certainly an emotional guy.

For the record, as primarily a social conservative, I couldn't vote for Rudy for president but I could swallow hard and vote for Huck because I'm sure his candidates for the Supreme court would be as good as W's.

Whoa here people! Let's calm down for a second. As some people have noted the idea of Novak as part of the smoke-filled room of mainstream conservatism is a bit off. His position on not only the war but Israel is proof enough of that. But even the text of the column itself hardly supports the notion that Novak is reading Huckabee out of the movement.

He declares Huckabee to be "far removed from the conservative-libertarian model of Barry Goldwater and Ronald Reagan." This seems right to me. I like Huckabee. I even like his handling of fiscal matters in Arkansas. But it is clear that he not operating from the same rhetorical position as Goldwater or Reagan.

Could it be that the economic side is only primary and the social side depends on securing economic prosperity and liberty? Think of it as Maslow's Pyramid at work in setting priorities.

Funny, all the secular, small-government, Goldwater-Reagan fans I know wonder why you can only be a conservative if you oppose abortion and gay rights.

The war, abortion and taxes are all, in their turn, litmus tests for different parts of the Republican coalition -- which is having trouble sticking together under the strain.

There's no long term economic prosperity in spending money that you don't have. There's no long term economic prosperity is accruing the kind of debt that this country accumulates year after year.

Liberty? The only liberty that conservatives seem to care about is the right to buy lots and lots of guns that can shoot multiple rounds of bullets in a few seconds. And, of course, using big guns to fight terrorists. Conservatives really seem to like guns & bombs, or, at least they like the idea of those things being the solution to problems. There are other ways to preserve liberty & use guns and bombs as a last resort.

If Huckabee gets that, then he's not a conservative.

In emotional terms, what is important to the GOP today is not what a candidate is for, but what he is against. Even though voters say they are concerned about the economy, Iraq, and health care, GOP candidates today compete to be the one most fiercely opposed to terrorism, abortion, taxes, and Hillary.

Will 2008 clarify matters? If Hillary is nominated, I fear not. Seems likely that Republicans across the land will unite to vote against her, regardless of their candidate.

Simon: Conversely, Novak has been an opponent of the Iraq War from the beginning, so the claim that he regards that as a touchstone of conservative orthodoxy is ridiculous.

I thought I had made myself clear. It's not Novak who's trying to drum Paul out of the GOP because of the war issue; it's the GOP establishment. I believe Ross Douthat, while I was on vacation, made the point on his blog that the reason Paul's been hammered hard from the Right but not Huck (to this point) is because Iraq war orthodoxy is the most important thing to the GOP establishment, and the base.

Kit (and Don)-

Hillary is a no-go for independents, conservatives, and middle-of-the-road freaks like me. Honestly, I'd vote for Tom Tancredo if that was the candidate the 'Pubs put up to take on Hillary. I know, scary thought, but better (according to the majority of polls) than putting her egomaniacal personage in a position of such power.

Right now, I think most voters just don't care, because NONE of the candidates (on either side) pass muster. Our republic is in a very sorry state, politically. Sorry excuse for a president, sorry excuses for candidates to succeed him...something's gotta give.

Is the Republicans' "True Face"....the Devil Take the Hindmost? That's what it looks like from here. Am I wrong?

Don:

With all due respect, I think it's clear that Democrats as a group want to see the government act to give health care to more people, to reduce carbon emissions, and to reduce the gap between the rich and the poor. It could be argued that bringing the troops home from Iraq is also a positive action, but I see that as an anti-war action.

What are Republicans as a group clearly for?

Well Novak is obviously a character ... the Prince of Darkness and all that ... so I wouldn't overstate his column as reflecting some act by the GOP establishment (aka "The Man").

Nevertheless, I do think it is both the case (1) that libertarian supply-side economics matters a great deal to him (it was a running gag on The Capital Gang that he turned every discussion into the capital-gains tax) and thus he is not a Huckabee supporter in the primaries, and (2) that he reads Huckabee out of the conservative movement on that basis -- "the false conservative."

To (1) I can have no objection and Novak's opposition to Huckabee is entirely appropriate (if wrong-headed, sez this "Papiosocialist"). But (2) is different. Economic conservatives tend to act as if, and this Novak column is one example of it, they are the gatekeepers of the term "conservative" and expect social conservatives to line up behind Rudy Giuliani (and I've argued that we should, at least in a general election if we've failed to prevent his nomination).

We can debate whether Novak "speaks for" the GOP mainstream or "true conservatives." But there can be no doubt that this column is written as if he does -- "it makes real conservatives shudder." And I've talked to a couple of paleos and libertoids in the past week who deride Huckabee as "a pro-life Democrat." I just do not detect in either those comments nor Novak's column the spirit of "but if he's the nominee, he's still better than Hillary" -- which, bad as Huckabee may be on economic issues from their perspective, is just as true as Giuliani on social issues for us.

Also, Rod, the reason "The Man" has declared Paul anathema is not the war per se but his being a stark-raving nutter who happily attracts a clientele for whom "nutter" would be an improvement.

Fair enough Victor. Two points:

1) I think most types of conservatives act as if they are the gatekeepers of the term "conservative".

2) Huckabee is playing in the big leagues now and everyone knows that to win the primary you go to the right -- you go for the base. So since Huckabee is now a genuine threat I think we can expect a lot of people (i.e. those people who support someone else for the nomination) to hurl some serious accusations at him. And we can expect those accusations, primaries being what they are, to claim that he is not a real conservative. And in fact this is the accusation we hear from all the other candidates against each other (with the exception of Giuliani). My point? That we should expect to hear a lot more "He's not a real conservative because of his economic policies." And every time we hear it we should not assume that it's the mainstream of conservatism talking.

Having watched Novak for years, I have always felt he was the leader of (or at least a charter member of) the Wallet Party.

Every issue is decided based upon the amount of money it will put into, or take out of, his own personal wallet.

"Every issue is decided based upon the amount of money it will put into, or take out of, his own personal wallet."

And this differs from Rep. Orthodoxy - how?

I'm going to go out on a limb and say that Novak isn't going to denounce an anti-war candidate as a false conservative. After all, it was Novak who was denounced as "unpatriotic" in a cover story by Rod's then-employer for being insufficiently enthusiastic about the Iraq War.

Now, I'm personally not all that interested in what makes a "true conservative" as I don't see political conservatism (a human ideology) as the ideal to which would should be striving. But it does seem to me that the strain of Southern Evangelical political activism of which Huckabee is emblematic does represent a break from what was typically defined as conservatism up until this decade in the U.S. through its willingness to use federal power to pursue an activist agenda.