Here's an interesting analysis by WaPo's Dan Balz of Huckabee's closing-round Iowa speech, which Balz, a veteran political reporter, says is unlike anything he's ever heard in politics. Excerpts from the Balz analysis. Boldface mine:
Most candidates in the final days before a crucial election offer a vision of what their leadership would mean to the lives of ordinary people. They include lists of issue priorities of the kind Hillary Clinton offers. They can wrap policy with an inspirational frame of the type Barack Obama presents or sound a call to arms in the way John Edwards is doing. They can identify a single issue to embody a candidacy, as John McCain and Rudy Giuliani have done with Iraq and terrorism.Huckabee's was strikingly different. For starters, it was remarkably short on policy. Oh, he touched on issues like energy and health care and immigration and he talked about gridlock in Washington and the corruption of big money in politics. But all of these points seemed incidental to the broader message of the speech.
Huckabee's speech was long on values. It was personal and conversational and, not surprisingly, given what he has shown in debates, often quite humorous. He filled the speech with stories about himself and his family.
Some were tender and touching, especially one about a visit with his daughter to Yad Vashem, Israel's holocaust museum that concluded with what, at age 11, she wrote in the book upon leaving the museum: "Why didn't somebody do something?" Others reflected less positively on his family, including a father whose "spare the rod, spoil the child" philosophy left a deep impression on Huckabee.
But all of them conveyed an underlying message of morality and responsibility that underscored why Huckabee's rise has been fueled by a desire on the part of Republican voters for a candidate who is both socially conservative and personally authentic.
Huckabee was openly critical of his own party and suggested a victory in Iowa would shake the rafters of the GOP. "I love this country and I love it more than I love the Republican Party," he said. "The Republican party needs to be changed. There are some people who aren't that fond of me for saying it.... They want the right and the left to keep fighting, Democrats and Republicans, the liberals and the conservatives."
He also appealed to the audience to upend the GOP establishment by supporting him next Thursday. "A week from tonight, you have an opportunity to do something completely different that would utterly confound the political ruling class in this country," he said, saying a victory would "shock with seismic energy" the political foundations of his party.
Balz concludes:
His performance was the work of a politician who no longer should be underestimated by anyone in his party.
Balz's analysis puts me in mind, once again, of the 2006 political strategy book "Applebee's America," co-authored by leading Democratic and Republican strategists. Check this passage:
Great Connectors like Presidents Bush and Clinton adapt to their times. They also realize that tactics do not win elections. Gut Values do. Cutting-edge strategies are useful only when they help a candidate make his or her values resonate with the public. For all their faults (and they had their share), Presidents Bush and Clinton knew that their challenge was in appealing to voters' hearts, not their heads. We heard this countless times: "Sure, he had sex wiht an intern and lied about it, but he cares about me and is wowrking hard on my behalf." And this: "The Iraq war stinks and his other politices aren't so hot, but at least I know where he stands."Even as the war in Iraq grew unpopular in 2004, President Bush's unapologetic policies seemed to most voters to reflect strength and principled leadership -- two Gut Values that kept him afloat until mid-2005, when he lost touch with the values that had gotten him re-elected. Even after lying to the public about his affair with a White House intern, President Clinton never lost his image as an empathetic, hardworking leader -- the foundation of his Gut Values Connection.
Both presidents understood that the so-called values debate runs deeper than abortion, gay rights, and other social issues that are too often the focus of the political elite in Washington. Voters don't pick presidents based on their positions on a laundry list of policies. If they did, President Bush wouldn't have stood a chance against Al Gore in 2000 or John Kerry in 2004. Rather, policies and issues are mere prisms through which voters take the true measure of a candidate: Does he share my values?
Dowd, Sosnik and Fournier go on to say that to those who wonder why people vote against their "self-interest" (that is, why they vote Republican instead of Democratic), the answer is because people deep down want a leader whom they believe reflects their own values, even in spite of his policies. The authors write: "Today, two Gut Values dominate the political landscape. Success will come to any leader who appeals to the public's desire for community and authenticity."
Now, if that's true, that would explain a lot about Huckabee's surprising rise, and his unusual speech. He apparently intuits that voters are going to be moved mostly on the question of, "Does this candidate understand me, and empathize with me?" It's not a question of therapeutic "I feel your pain" politics. Ronald Reagan wasn't a goopy pol, but most people felt they knew where he stood, and he stood more or less where they did. Huckabee is speaking in the language of ordinary people, and he does so believably. He's telling people that he identifies with common-sense conservatism, one that identifies more with Main Street than Wall Street. He's speaking to a sense among Republican voters that the party has forgotten to look out for the little guy, that community matters less to the party leaders than business interests. Whether that's a legitimate criticism or not is a fair question, but the point is he's talking about these things, and doing so believably.
Now, it could well be that Huckabee's own limitations make him an insufficient avatar of a new conservative politics (come to think of it, that's basically Jeremy Beer's complaint about my book). But I do believe that the kind of conservatism he stands for is the coming thing on the Right. If he doesn't make it to the nomination, he's going to be formidable in 2012 (assuming a Democratic win in '08), after he's had four years to study and polish his critique.
My guess is that two unpredictable news events will help determine whether or not Huckabee sinks or swims over the next month: 1) whether or not Pakistan blows up, and 2) the economic uncertainties over the credit crisis. If Pakistan's woes dominate the headlines, it's bad for Huck, and good for McCain. If bad economic news stays on the front page, it's good for Huck, especially if he pounds away on the Main St.-vs.-Wall Street theme.
But rounding back to Balz's main point, it strikes me that Huckabee is an instinct politician who is making a gut values connection with Republican crowds. This should have been obvious as far back as this summer, when the cash-and-organization-poor candidate very nearly won the Iowa straw poll on the strength of his oratory alone. But a lot of us -- well, nearly all of us -- in the news media missed it, because hey, what chance can a flat-broke Baptist preacher from Arkansas have against this Republican field anyway?

Add to Newsvine
Add to StumbleUpon
(Finally, I can post this in the right place!)
Rod:
From Balz, you are clearly picking up Michael Barone's ongoing theme of Republicans being the "discipline" party and Democrats being the "therapy" party.
The interesting thing about a Huckabee/Obama contest would be that Huckabee is a "discipline" candidate with an undercurrent of "therapy," and Obama is a "therapy" candidate with an undercurrent of "discipline."
Which is why I sense a contest between them would be both polite and highly useful for America.
Speaking of "Gut Values" and Huckabee, the Institute for Creation Research has recently expanded to Dallas. (There's hope in San Diego that they'll relocate fully.) The ICR's Henry M. Morris Center for Christian Leadership is at 1806 Royal Lane. And there's a nice article in the Chron (Dec 19) about their attempts to get their programs accredited in Texas. More conservative leadership is about to happen :-)
Re: gut values and "people deep down want a leader whom they believe reflects their own values, even in spite of his policies"--I think Jewish voters may not operate this way, probably because of our experience over the last 200 years or so in the US and Western Europe. Jews have all too often been discriminated against for not being "the right kind of person," despite having all the right policies and the highest grade of skills. Read up on Harvard's decision to institute Jewish quotas in the 1920s--their rationale was that there are things more important than being smart, and Jews haven't got them. Most of the Jewish voters I talk to or hear from these days are very uncomfortable with Huck and even more so with his supporters. Sorry.
I suspect that Jewish voters may not have the same kind of reaction to Huck (or Bush, or Reagan) as the rest of the country. The idea of voting for someone because he seems to be "the right kind of person", rather than because he has "the right kind of positions" may rub us the wrong way because our experience in the US and Western Europe is that we all too often get discriminated against for
Details on issues is great. I think there is value to it, but not because I think he or she will get done everything they say they want to do. Rather, I think it is instructive because it shows what principles they are making decisions from, or should I say, what moral values as well.
Personally, I think the Fair Tax Huck supports would revolutionize the tax system for the better, but I know he'll have an uphill battle to get it through Congress and it won't happen overnight, as much as I would like it to. But it shows to me what he values, and that is just as important, because I want a leader who makes decisions based upon a strong moral and principled foundation.
So I think that gut feeling involves the issues, but maybe not in the way people tend to think the issues should work. Naturally I want to vote for a candidate that I can agree with their position on specific issues, at least most of them, but more important to me is do they have the foundation from which to deal with all the yet unforeseen decisions they will have to make, some the public will never even know about.
That's where the authentic and gut feeling come in. Can I trust this guy to do what I think would be right, to decide like I might if I were in his shoes.
Naturally we can't find anyone who will do that 100%, and some people can put on a good show but be corrupt underneath. Yet, to me that is the important factors because issues will come and go, some that are now back page stories will be front page and on everyone's mind. So to judge a candidate purely on where they stand on one set of issues and nothing more amounts to treating the symptoms instead of the disease. Who cares if I agree with John Edwards, for example, in an issue, if I don't feel he shares my values and I don't feel I can trust what comes out of his mouth? (Not saying all that is true, just an example.)
And I recognized that in Huck back in Sept., right when he started to go up. Maybe he isn't, but he certainly comes across as someone with principles, morals, and a desire to help get our country back on the right track. It's also one of the reasons why I think if he doesn't win, I'll be more surprised than not. He knows how to connect with people, and that is more power than a bucket of money, and is why he is where he is now. I don't see that slowing down, short of some big crisis that kills him as a viable candidate.
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.