Juan Cole's got a bad case of left-wing Huckenfreude:
I simply can not tell you how much I am enjoying this. The GOP has been pandering to these stupid bastards for years, and every time I pointed it out I was called “anti-Christian” or something or other. Those of us who saw what the party was becoming were told to shut up, that it was good politics.Enjoy your new GOP, folks. And here is something else to think about- are the evangelicals going to support Romney or Giuliani if you do manage to trash Huckabee enough to secure the nomination for them? Will the eye for an eye crowd learn to forgive and forget? Have fun!
But that's not why the GOP Establishment is panicking. They're panicking because a) Huckabee is a wild card who could lose massively in the general election; b) Huckabee doesn't owe any of them anything; and c) Huckabee's rise shows how badly, perhaps irretrievably, the fusionist settlement (uniting social and economic conservatives) has broken down, leaving the GOP in a shambles.
It's funny, but when it looked like Rudy Giuliani, a social liberal, was going to be the nominee, we didn't see many, if any, establishment Republican opinion leaders freaking out over what kind of danger to the future of the party and the nation he represented, even though as Ross points out, Giuliani hasn't exactly been deep on policy (I had to research Giuliani for our Dallas Morning News editorial board debate on which candidate to endorse, and I was genuinely startled by how vague he was on many things). I think it's fair to say that it was assumed that Giuliani would be a sound representative of the Republican Party, and that the social and religious conservatives would do like they always do and get in line. Pat Robertson sure did.
But lo, it turns out that the candidate who's caught fire comes straight out of the religious/social conservative wing of the coalition, and he is unsound on issues most important to the fiscal wing. It's not supposed to work that way. Nobody at the elite level seems to expect the economic conservatives to suck it up for the sake of party unity. What does that say about the place of social conservatives in the party all these years?
I don't want to overdo this. I think it's perfectly fine to be worried about Huckabee's vagueness, and his unpreparedness. I'm worried about these things too, which is a big reason why I can't say I'd vote for him (though honestly, any Republican who finds himself worked up over Huckabee's lack of knowledge about foreign affairs, say, should ask himself if he felt the same way about Gov. Bush in 1999 and 2000, and if not, why not). Still, it's hard to shake the belief that the real problem with Mike Huckabee, as far as the establishment is concerned, is that he's not clubbable.
Reader Conor writes on this topic:
I really don't think it is because he is a Christian Evangelical who believes to the core of his person. I don't think it is because he is a Christian Evangelical through and through and is the equivalent of Pat Robertson winning. I think it is that he is a populist and he is a hell of a better politician than any of the other folks at the top of the tier. Sure Huckabee is trying to squeeze the Evangelicals for all they are worth, but there is more to him than that. I really think this is the piece that too many are missing by focusing in on the fact that he is a Baptist minister, Christian Leader, etc.

Add to Newsvine
Add to StumbleUpon
Conservative like giving big tax cuts to the wealthy.
I prefer Huckabee who will do something for the little guy.
The demographic winter is coming to the US.
Aging workforce.
geocities(dot)com/demographic_crash
Good information on the subject.
Welcome for a visit.
I think you mean John Cole don't you?
Juan Cole is an expert on the middle east and his column is called "Informed Comment". As far as I know he has no affiliation with either party.
John Cole is a former Republican who recently dropped out of the party.
Someone else probably already noticed, but just in case I'm letting you know.
Sincerely,
Sondra
I'm just curious why you can support a Republican candidate who has two positions in common with the Republican Party. Huckabee is badon all policy fiscal and foreign. He is pro regulation, pro raising taxes, and anti-free trade. His comments on foreign policy, which can be seen in Foreign Affairs, are terrible. He pardoned more criminals then the last three governors before him combined. He's pro-life, great. Super. That's fine. You know who else is pro-life? Thompson, Hunter, Ron Paul, and maybe Romney, depending on when you ask him. Every Republican except for Rudy is pro-life. Same with gay marriage. So I have to ask this: Why are you supporting a pro-life version of John Edwards?
Britt, you're making the mistake of treating the Republican vote as monolithic, when in fact it is a coalition. Do you think that the mass migration of Catholic voters from the Democratic party to the Republican party is a result of their having discovered free market economics in 1973? A large number of Republican voters are simply pro-life voters. Abortion is the single most important issue to them and it's on that basis that they vote Republican. In fact, many of them would probably prefer to vote Democrat were it not for the abortion issue. So while it may frustrate you that only one conservative position is trumping all the others, it is not irrational, because those other issues are yours, not theirs. As long as the Republicans are dependent on the pro-life vote to form a majority -- and they are -- they would all be well-advised to limit their choices to reliably pro-life candidates, and Rudy and Mitt are not reliably pro-life. Once economic conservatives decide to get behind one of the other pro-life candidates, perhaps Huckabee's supporters will give them a closer look. In the meantime, Huckabee looks a whole lot more electable, and even pro-lifers don't want to waste their votes.
Yep, the fiscal Cons always get what they want. Which is why nominee G.W. Bush went down in flames so badly, and President Steven Forbes has been running the show for 8 years.
Because only the Fiscal Cons get to pick, and they'd never pick a pro-Religion candidate like Bush.
Yep, woe is you, because the Fiscal Conservatives have gotten record level Government growth for the past 8 years; obviously they're winning and you (with Bush promoting Federal funds to religious charities) are losing horribly.
Obviously the solution is to see if the fiscal cons can get screwed even harder this time. So run a candidate who is in fact bad on every single issue the fiscal cons have?
That sounds like a good way to keep the coalition together. I mean the fiscal cons accepted the beating that was Bush, obvious they can be beaten even harder if you try. Why not tell them its their fault for being hit this hard?
Oh, you are. Well good show.
Post a Comment
By submitting these comments, I agree to the beliefnet.com terms of service, rules of conduct and privacy policy (the "agreements"). I understand and agree that any content I post is licensed to beliefnet.com and may be used by beliefnet.com in accordance with the agreements.