Huckabism is the GOP's future

I agree with Brooks, and in light of this wouldn't a McCain/Huckabee ticket be interesting?

Regarding the advantage and rightness of putting age, wisdom, and experience first, some folks a few years back thought the ticket should have been "Cheney-Bush," rather than "Bush-Cheney."

An interesting thought experiment:

"Compare and contrast the personalities, ideologies, experiences, and purported comprehensiveness of 'Huckabee-McCain' and 'Bush-Cheney'"

History may not repeat itself, but it often rhymes.

(And I've already had too much coffee!)

A wise, insightful column by Brooks. I share his skepticism that Huckabee personally will be the vehicle to transform the GOP. But the Party's future belongs to what Ross Douthat and Reihan Salam call "Sam's Club Republicans". It's just a matter of how long it takes to get us there.

I think a single caucus in the State best known for The Music Man is too soon and too little to make generalizations or draw conclusions about the wins of Huckabee and Obama. Things could dramatically change in the next few days and weeks, and then columnists and pundits will be writing columns unexplaining what they're writing today. So I guess I'm taking today's write-ups with a grain of salt - which I will naturally sprinkle on my ear of corn, the other thing that Iowa is known for. :)

"HOW could a national sales tax possibly be a good thing for a young middle class couple with four kids? Or a just married middle class couple?"

Depends on the exemptions, income cut-offs, and such.

"And HOW could eliminating the 35% tax that corporations now pay benefit the middle class???? When obviously it most directly benefits the big corporations!!!!"

Corporations do not pay taxes. They pass the cost on to the consumer in the former of price increases, or they cut staff. The economics of 'soaking the big corporations' by taxing them is just a bone thrown to gullible victims of class envy.

Rob G. wrote: "Corporations do not pay taxes. They pass the cost on to the consumer in the former of price increases, or they cut staff."

Except for corporations that export.

So, the future of the Republican party is a mixture of anti-intellectualism, cultural resentment, economic illiteracy and vulgar Pharasaic religiosity. Lovely.

Anytime David Brooks speaks, I listen. That said, realistically, all the values issues that are here addressed mean essentially nothing in terms of a presidential presence. How would whoever is president affect real family solidity that, to your and Brooks' point, went south somehwere in there.

That said, I am happy today that I am being forced to believe a new day is coming. This Bush era has felt, among other things, vulgar. I'm comfortable that Guiliani and Romney have no traction, and that Thompson is relegated to straight-to-video cameos. Thanks GOD the election year is FINALLY here after God knows how long.

"the future of the Republican party is a mixture of anti-intellectualism, cultural resentment, economic illiteracy and vulgar Pharasaic religiosity. Lovely."

As opposed to the Democratic party, which is a mixture of pseudo-intellectualism, cultural barbarism, economic ineptitude, and vulgar anti-religiosity. Equally lovely.

Simon, I think you over-estimate the influence of the modern vice presidency (current occupant excepted, of course.) But that aside, every vice president is only as influential as his president allows. Other than presiding over the Senate, the vice president has no other consitutional duty. He doesn't have to be taken into the president's confidence - Jackson didn't even speak to Calhoun after 1830 - and he can't be made to share the president's agenda - most recently, Henry Wallace, who was then set aside for Truman after the end of Roosevelt's third term.

The vice president-as-a-principal-political-confidant only goes as far back as Carter in living memory. And even since then, Reagan's choice of Bush as his vice presidental running mate had more to do with traditional ticket balancing than any appreciation of his role as policy maker.

I agree that a McCain/Huckabee ticket would be interesting.

Yeah, "interesting", as in the Chinese curse: "May you live through interesting times."

In the history of the Republic only Vice Presidents John Adams, Thomas Jefferson, Martin Van Buren and George H.W. Bush succeeded directly to the presidency by election. It may be many things, but the stepping stone to the presidency it ain't.

I was talking about the past 50 years, during which the role of the Vice President has changed dramatically, not the entire history of the Republic. Veeps of the past half century:

Nixon -- Cruised to his party's nomination in 1960. Later elected President.

Johnson -- Became President upon Kennedy's assassination.

Humphrey -- Won party's presidential nomination in 1968.

Agnew - Resigned in disgrace in 1973.

Ford -- Became President upon Nixon's resignation.

Rockefeller -- Retired from politics.

Mondale -- Cruised to party's presidential nomination in 1984.

G.H.W. Bush -- Elected President in 1988.

Quayle -- Political oblivion.

Gore -- Cruised to his party's presidential nomination in 2000.

Cheney -- Took himself out of consideration for the presidency.

Not all of these Veeps became president, but all except Agnew, Rockefeller, Quayle and Cheney have been very serious contenders after leaving the White House. The modern Vice Presidency is a stronger base from which to run for the White House than any other office.

Rod, you missed Brooks' most potent observation -- that Huckabee is "the first ironic evangelical."

His authenticity, in all its contradictions, attracts him to the Religious Right (the idealistic rank-and-file, not its corrupt/cynical leaders). And his willingness to, as Brooks put it, embrace pop culture (e.g., Chuck Norris, Jay Leno) makes him seem non-threatening to folks like me.

Never mind that pesky evolution stance ...

quote: "The actual way to reduce divorce, and the religious right is going to scream bloody murder at this, is require couples to live together for six months to a year before marriage."

From what I understand, studies show that couples who live together before getting married have a higher divorce rate than those who don't. Sure, "red states" have higher divorce rates than "blue states," but the marriage rate is also lower in "blue states," while the cohabitation rate is higher. In short, marriages fail more often in "red states," but people in "blue states" seem to be more wary of marriage or are giving up on it altogether in larger numbers.
Certainly divorce and illegitimacy are big factors in crime for young men and poverty, especially for women and children. What could the government do about this? Government policies can only have a limited impact on these things, but a good start would be to encourage responsible fatherhood, end no-fault divorce and to require pre-marital counseling and counseling for couples considering divorce. None of these changes need be divisive along partisan lines, and I believe encouraging responsible fatherhood is one of Obama's big points.

rr

The actual way to reduce divorce, and the religious right is going to scream bloody murder at this, is require couples to live together for six months to a year before marriage. (Of course, this doesn't require them to have sex.)

While I agree that a President cannot prevent divorce (and was unaware that Huckabee had campaigned on such a platform), your proposed solution overlooks the fact that couples who live together before marrying divorce at higher rates than those who do not.

Huckabee's chief obstacle to getting elected is his party affiliation. People may be slow learners, but they learn.

The Democrats, being the ostensible party in opposition to prevailing negative trends,are unlikely to relinquish momentum. What is even more interesting than Huckabee's breaks with GOP mainstream thinking (including plagiarising Ron Paul's worst idea) is that John Edwards' firebrand anti-corporate rhetoric has by no means resulted in his being marginalized like, say, Dennis Kucinich. His message clearly resonates. Corporate behaviors are increasingly perceived as being out of control, morally indefensible and at odds with the greater national interest. People in the lower 3/5ths income brackets are much more anxious and angry than the upper 2/5ths seem to realize. Oops! We forgot about all those folks in the second-highest income bracket who have suddenly gone upside-down in equity ... or worse. A lot of Americans feel extremely insecure, and rightly (for the most part) or wrongly (a little) they blame the GOP.

I agree that Huckabee's best qualities are probably indicators of a direction Republicans need to explore if they want to regain credibility with the broader electorate. But it ain't happening in 2008. The old warhorses are hanging on with white knuckles.

Sorry, DavidTC, the stats are contrary to your assertion. Co-habiting people are much less likely to form long lasting committed relationships than are people who do not cohabit before marriage.

A study on premarital cohabitation conducted by researchers from Yale University, Columbia University, and the Institute for Resource Development at Westinghouse revealed that "the divorce rates of women who cohabit are nearly 80 percent higher than the rates of those who do not."

n a 2001 study from the University of Michigan, researcher Pamela Smock found that "premarital cohabitation tends to be associated with lower marital quality and increased risk of divorce."

Not to mention the sky-high incidence of alcoholism, drug abuse, domestic violence and poverty that are associated with live-in boyfriends.

Meanwhile, the research on marriage and its personal and social benefits is dramatically positive in almost every area. From physical well-being and financial prosperity to emotional health and spiritual maturity for married individuals. From lower juvenile crime rates to a more educated workforce and higher economic output for society.

Crunchy conservatives have already been through the Sixties; we've sorted out what we want to keep (not much, really) and what we want to throw away from the Cultural Revolution. We know all about the heartbreak, lawlessness, and descent into the pit that comes with being "experienced." We definitely aren't giving you access to our daughters!

Thank-you, DavidTC, for starting the conversation about divorce, as in: what does the president have to do with it?

Marriage and divorce laws are determined by states, not the feds. Is divorce the new abortion for the conservative evangelicals in the coming election? Then we can expect lots of talk, heads nodding in agreement, and no change.

The biggest impediments to successful marriage include the example set by ones own family of origin, maturity and unrealistic expectations, whether romantic ideals or simply marrying to escape a bad home life (maybe not as common now as in my parents' day?), which may just result in leaving a frying pan for a fire.

I hope Brooks is correct, but doubt it. I haven't lived long enough to have reliable opinions on anything, but in my limited experience middle Americans are only willing to support candidates who speak to their economic concerns when they feel squeezed. When times are good such appeals either shame them (by offering them a hand out) or confront them with reality (i.e., that progress may be illusory). This must have something to do with the American character which is courageous, and entrepreneurial, and innovative, and hopeful; which may be why democracy works here; because the mass of Americans are temperate and virtuous and they have no desire to take from their neighbor so that they can get ahead. They assume that they will get ahead because they work hard and our economic system rewards hard work and, they believe, makes progress inevitable. This, I think, is a significant reason why Buchanan has been such an unsuccessful political candidate in spite of being dead right on most every major political issue he's formed an opinion on in the last 20 years. He's a dream buster, and voters want to be told that their dreams will come true.

So bread and butter issues only appeal to most Americans in most times when they're presented, not as a hand out to a man suffering, but as making a particular institution that is already great even better. So, when times are good, you can campaign on making our schools the best schools, or making our hospitals the best hospitals, or making our military the best military (as long as you're careful not to imply that they are too bad currently), and as long as you aren’t going to do it by soaking the rich, because Middle Americans are simply rich people in transition. But campaigning on the premise that is not well in Whoville, and that Middle America is not getting theirs, and that we need new policies to help Middle America, is DOA, unless voters are feeling a serious pinch. That's what Huckabee is playing to. His timing is perfect. If home equity was currently skyrocketing, credit was cheap and easy, gas was cheap, and the market was surging, all with Iraq out of the headlines, Romney would be a shoe in.

So Huckabee's rise is a phenomena, not a realignment; unless the national character changes (which it won't) or we face an ugly few decades (which we might). And I say this as a person who, generally, will only vote for crazy old cranks who think the sky is falling.

Frank

Sorry, DavidTC, the stats are contrary to your assertion. Co-habiting people are much less likely to form long lasting committed relationships than are people who do not cohabit before marriage.

No. All studies that I've seen to that effect are completely flawed because they simply take two sets of people just married, some who cohabited and some who didn't, and see if they're still together a year later.

The results can be trivially explained by marriage being unrelated to the breakup....maybe everyone's breaking up after two years of living together. It's just the one that lived together a year in advance got divorced after one year of marriage, and the ones that didn't live together got divorced after two. It's still two years. (If true, that would actually prove my proposal is a good one, except I proposed too short a cohabitation period.)

Show me some study that has a study of couples dating from cohabitation and not marriage and then we'll see. I want to compare people after five years of marriage to people with three years of cohabitation and two of marriage.

OTOH, I could be entirely wrong, but someone still needs to explain what's going wrong in red states. As both the marriage and divorce rate is higher, I stand by my premise that many people are getting married who should not be. Maybe cohabitation will not prevent that, but I can't think of anything else.

And, again, I don't know why we'd be trying to prevent 'divorce', especially divorce after only a few years of marriage. We need to worry about children, not 22 year-olds who try a marriage for three years and decide it's not for them and presumably are not very harmed by the experience.

We definitely aren't giving you access to our daughters!

But I was going to pay fifty shekels for her!

Long title.

Free Lunch: How the Wealthiest Americans Enrich Themselves at Government Expense (and StickYou with the Bill) by David Cay Johnston

Financial stress - forgot that one. For good reason. When my husband was out of FT work for two years I told myself regularly that when we got back on our feet, I would divorce that SOB! When we got back on our feet, I no longer felt that way.

So, the way the president and the feds can reduce divorce would be to enact economic policies that support families.

Anyone see Establishment Republicans or the libertarians going for that?

If Huck takes the GOP, then there will be no one espousing smaller government except the Libertarian Party.

Well who's espousing smaller government right now? Surely you won't say the Republicans!

Mrs. Pringle

Family stability and paying attention to people who make less than 50K a year. Sounds like a New Deal Democrat.

To me, a moderate liberal, TPSoCal's position has found few spokespersons because it is so inherently self-contradictory: it combines economic libertarianism with social totalitarianism. I'm sure his religious beliefs demand it, but it's hard to see how this combination of views will ever command a big constituency outside the religion-driven community.

And people are missing the biggest reason of all for divorce, Arguments about Money/Bills/Finances - which is where the health of the economy really comes into play. No jobs = increased domestic abuse, child abuse,abortion rates, divorce.

Now that is an interesting point to be made about what could be causing higher divorce rates in red states. Someone should correlate divorce rates and mortgage defaults. (Actually, almost anything would be better than mortgage defaults right now, as there's totally unrelated randomness going on there as housing prices collapse, but I can't think of anything that demonstrates 'family-destroying financial difficulties' better, offhand.)

Unfortunately, conservatives won't like the way to fix that either, which is societal safety nets.

"Unfortunately, conservatives won't like the way to fix that either, which is societal safety nets."

Conservatives have no problem with safety nets. We just don't like it when they're allowed to become hammocks.

"Well who's espousing smaller government right now? Surely you won't say the Republicans!"

And therein lies the problem. As someone once said, both parties are heading for the same cliff -- it's just that one's doing it at 100 mph while the other's going 65.

Conservatives have no problem with safety nets. We just don't like it when they're allowed to become hammocks.

No, conservatives say they have no problems with them, but where, exactly, is the Republican support for any sort of medical bill safety net? Until recently, medical bills caused something like a third of all bankruptcies, although it's entirely possible that mortgage payments have overtaken them.

I have no sympathy for any sub-prime mortgage holder. The single cause of the entire mess in our economy (yeah, big brush sweeping generalities day today) is the ubiquitous notion that we are entitled to unearned rewards. Borrowing money is the American Dream now (with the national debt as the biggest justification in human history), and until people decide to wake up they will continue to have nightmares... and deservedly.

Sub-prime mortgage (And thinking sub-prime is the problem is, in fact, a problem. The whole market's going down, not 'sub-prime'.) holders don't need sympathy. Sure, there's going to be a rough ride for them, but we don't need to help people make another $1800 payment on a $650,000 loan on a house they bought for $400,000 and is now worth $250,000.

What we need to do is tell them best option for them is to walk out the door and never look back, and find one of those $250,000 houses that was foreclosed on by the bank and buy that instead with a $350,000 loan. (Maybe they can even buy their own house! Just kidding...somewhat.) And they won't get one with an insane adjustable rate loan because the normal payment schedule is something they can afford.

When the housing market collapses, it's the banks that are going to be selling near-worthless houses at auction and people who were foreclosed on are happily going to wander up and buy them dirt cheap. People are in for a rough ride, but, for most of them, the solution is to get shaken off, rent for a bit, and walk back in the front door in two years and laugh as they pick up a better house for less.

Even if they have un-loanable credit, that just means others will buy those houses and rent them to those people. Rent prices follow housing prices anyway, and right now rent prices are dropping like a rock, ahead of housing prices. (As a lot of home sellers are still delusional about what their house is worth and let it sit on the market for four months before realizing it's 35% too high, whereas people who rent out places are know that property sitting empty is loosing them money, and better 500 a month now than 600 a month four months from now.)

Call it karma, if you believe in that. Call it 'jingle mail'. It'll be real big over the next two years.

The only thing we need to worry about is banks attempting to rewrite lending laws so that you are liable for any loaned amount in excess of what your foreclosed house sells for. I'm sorry, but that's not how loans with collateral work. If I fail to pay off the loan, you get the collateral, not a penny more or less. If the value of the collateral has gone up or down, well, pick better collateral next time.

Banks will eventually try to assert that 'immoral' people are ripping them off, which is very funny considering I've never heard of a bank offering to erase part of a loan if the property value dropped. Or give money back if they foreclosed on a house and it sold for more than the remaining loan. So apparently it's only 'unfair' if they're left holding the short end of the stick.

Anyway, expect that concept mysteriously showing up in the future, how we can 'stop jingle mail', which is actually 'how to make homeowners instead of banks and the real estate industry pay for the absurd housing bubble that banks and the real estate industry caused to make as much money as possible'.