I'm going to amaze everyone here -- not -- and say that I'm endorsing Mike Huckabee for president.
I know, you're shocked, shocked, given how much I blog about Huckabee, and how favorably. I got a phone call yesterday from a reporter working on a piece about Huckabee's supporters, and he told me that it's surprising how often "Crunchy Cons" comes up when talking to Huckabee supporters about why they like him. He seemed surprised that I hadn't identified myself as a Huckabee supporter, especially given all the blogging I do about him.
His phone call made me wonder: why haven't I come out for Huck, given how interested I am in his campaign, and how, in fact, he's the only Republican candidate that interests me (Ron Paul was the other, but the bigot-grams story ended that). I thought about it on the drive home tonight.
The first things that come to mind are Huckabee's record. I don't know that I trust his about-face on illegal immigration; today I sat in an editorial board meeting with two pro-immigration advocates running a sophisticated campaign to overcome opposition to illegal immigration. One, a Republican, said, "We all know how Romney and Giuliani really feel about immigration, and we know that after the election, they'll do the right thing." He didn't mention Huckabee, but I'm not sure if that was just an oversight. But what's the alternative? I'm encouraged that he pretty much lifted his current plan from Mark Krikorian.
Secondly, I don't like where Huckabee is on the Iraq War. But none of the Republicans, save Paul, are where I am. And after this week, he's no longer an alternative.
Third, I think the Fair Tax is bizarre. But I also think it would have zero chance of passing, so I'm not bothered by Huck's embrace of it.
Fourth, I am sick to death of this crop of Republicans, and chagrined it how gullible I'd allowed myself to be about Bush, so I'm reluctant to get too excited about any candidate.
Those are the things against Huckabee. I think there are two more fundamental issues, at least for me. One, expanding on that last point, is simply Republican fatigue. I can't imagine voting Democratic this fall (an Obama-Giuliani race is the only thing that would make me do that), but I'd figured I just wouldn't vote. Even more basically, it seems to me that having a crunchy-con candidate doesn't make a lot of sense. One of the basic ideas behind crunchy conservatism is that culture precedes politics, and that we conservatives have placed far too much hope in politics as a way to move the culture. I wasn't really looking for a crunchy con candidate.
And yet, there's a reason I keep going back to Huckabee, almost in spite of my misgivings. He's right on key social issues, which are the most important issues to me. I think his basic orientation toward the economy and families is where I'd like to see my president be (that is, I think somebody could show him material about Sam's Club Republicans, E.F. Schumacher's writing, and the work of Wendell Berry, and he'd get it). He's got that sensibility. After the past 15 years or so of intense partisanship, I really like his bit about being conservative, but not angry about it (this is something I like about Obama too, on the other side). I mean, we're always going to have partisanship, but I'm tired of both sides orienting themselves around hating the political Other. The tone change Huck would bring to our politics would be most welcome.
Look, no one who gets to that level of politics is going to be uncompromised, or will be perfect. I worry about Huckabee's lack of experience in foreign affairs, but no more than I do Barack Obama's, Hillary Clinton's, or any other GOP candidate except John McCain. I think Huckabee would be a good president. I know he'd be better than any other Republican. Is he a crunchy con? I don't know. But I do believe that he's not only the closest Republican presidential candidate out there to one, but he's the only candidate out there who can understand what motivates conservatives like us. It's the reason I led the pro-Huckabee charge on the Dallas Morning News editorial board, during our endorsement deliberations. And like I blogged the other day, a vote for Huck is in part a vote to shift the conservative movement in a more traditionalist/crunchy direction, opening up the conversation on the Right to ideas that haven't really been part of our discussion for a long, long time. And that's pretty great.
So, go Huckabee! You've got my vote in the Texas GOP primary.
Add to Del.icio.us
Add to Technorati
Add to Digg
Add to Newsvine
Add to Facebook
Add to StumbleUpon
Subscribe
Huckabee is everything that is wrong with the republican party that I have been a part of for the last 2 decades. I believe the only reason McCain has gone up in the polls is that republicans like my husband and me are embarrassed by the prospects of a fast-talking televangilist type cracking jokes at a presidential convention. As part of the military community, I have seen our friends express dislike for McCain, but outright disgust for Huckabee. Huckabee wants to have us treat Al Queda like we would want them to treat us? Pleaaasse!!! This is a serious time. Romney has the smarts, but the prejudice by the so-called base against Mormons is obvious. Thompson is great, except he hasn't shown the agressive tactics necessary to keep up against the Carville attack machine. Most people I know see our choice between Huckabee and McCain. We won't give our money to either, but we would prefer McCain over the Huckster, Obama and Hillary. I can't forgive McCain for the illegal immigration stuff -- why should anyone he called a yahoo vote for him? He excuse is they are all God's children -- what a joke, aren't terrorists God's children, too, but I want them wiped off the face of the earth! I think we have to elect strong republican senators and congressman to make sure a President McCain can't ruin this country through a massive welfare program called for document fraud, identity theft, and criminals who he champions every day. McCain has broken my heart, but Huckabee would be a disaster.
You're smoking something, Dreher. Huckabee can't be trusted on any of the issues that matter. He will continue to do for the GOP what Bush has sone - thoroughly destroy it. A Huckabee or McCain victory would be worse for the GOP's fortunes than a Clinton or Obama victory.
Huckabee will do nothing for the social issues, because he's shown he's not willing to fight for them, and there's not enough support in Congress for them. He will continue to expand the government because that's what he's done in the past and there's enough Democrats and Republicans to do that.
As for the claim that we know where Romney "really stands" on immigration, that, too, is wrong. Romney's reputation as a flip-flopper - and his use of the issue in the primaries - means that he can't afford to flip-flop again. If he did his support, pre- or post-election, would evaporate like the desert rain.
Romney the flip-flopper is really, truly the only one we can trust.
I'll put it more bluntly: history has shown time and again that in order to fight the vast forces of government expansionism one needs a dynamic, vigorous personality. Huckabee has shown that he does not have that personality, so he'll just go with the flow of Democrats and so-called "moderate" (was used to be called Rockefeller) Republicans. McCain has the vigor but not the tact to fight it. In addition, his support for amnesty and higher levels of immigration will eventually lead to support for bigger government no matter what he personally does as president. Romney still needs to show he has all that vigor - the force of a Newt Gingrich or Ronald Reagan - but he's probably the best shot we have.
I'm very disturbed by this report about Romney and immigration.
It speaks deeply to the core fear that people trying to save this country have: that those who wish to subsume us in a tidal wave of unassimilable or difficult-to-assimilate aliens have the smug knowledge that their work is like rolling downhill, with the institutional culture of the media, academe, government, and big business, as well as the Catholic Church and the nonprofit world all on their side. Even worse, we fear that Republican candidates' carefully parsed rhetoric on this issue is a cynical pander; that the candidates are in the pocket of big business and the ethnic lobbies, and that they will pull off a rejiggered 1986 scam on us, eventually transforming the country beyond recognition, ruining it, but profiting their short term political careers.
Your post is so on-target and damaging that I suspect, Rod, that you are deliberately trying to undermine Romney on one of the two signature issues he's been using against Huckabee and McCain (the other being, of course, taxes).
How can you dismiss Ron Paul over one issue and enthusiastically endorse Huckabee who you obviously have numerous issues with? You simply explain them away.
The "bigot-grams" as you call them are a non-story. It's clear he didn't write those. I'll agree it's a hurdle, but it's only one . . . as compared to Huckabee's many.
Care to explain?
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.