Underestimating Huck

Yes, Huckabee is getting a bit more respect this morning from the pundits after that huge Iowa win -- and Matthew Continetti of the Weekly Standard seems curiously alone among conservative commentators in recognizing that Huck's victory was really, really a big deal, and not just a triumph of theocon identity politics:

Thing is, Huckabee had those same vulnerabilities in Iowa. He leaves Iowa as the only Republican presidential candidate to win a caucus or primary (so far). Yes, New Hampshire likes to vote differently from Iowa, and there are fewer religious conservatives in the Granite State. But what's to stop Huckabee from overcoming those obstacles, just as he overcame the obstacles that faced him in Iowa?

I'm not sure anyone fully understands what Huckabee's victory means, other than suggesting that social conservatives prefer a candidate they can laugh with and trust on the issues most important to them. But I am sure there's little historical precedent in the GOP for a victory of this scope for a candidate who came out of nowhere.

I think Continetti's humility on this score is appropriate, and I say that not just because I'm pleased that Huckabee won. The conventional wisdom has been so very wrong about his candidacy till now, and it could well be that the media and political establishment simply doesn't grasp what's happening to allow Huckabee's stunning David vs. Goliath win over Romney and the GOP establishment.

Peggy Noonan has a pithy column this morning on the Iowa results. She too has a Strange New Respect for Huckabee:

What we have learned about Mr. Huckabee the past few months is that he's an ace entertainer with a warm, witty and compelling persona. He won with no money and little formal organization, with an evangelical network, with a folksy manner, and with the best guileless pose in modern politics. From the mail I have received the past month after criticizing him in this space, I would say his great power, the thing really pushing his supporters, is that they believe that what ails America and threatens its continued existence is not economic collapse or jihad, it is our culture.

They have been bruised and offended by the rigid, almost militant secularism and multiculturalism of the public schools; they reject those schools' squalor, in all senses of the word. They believe in God and family and America. They are populist: They don't admire billionaire CEOs, they admire husbands with two jobs who hold the family together for the sake of the kids; they don't need to see the triumph of supply-side thinking, they want to see that suffering woman down the street get the help she needs.

They believe that Mr. Huckabee, the minister who speaks their language, shares, down to the bone, their anxieties, concerns and beliefs. They fear that the other Republican candidates are caught up in a million smaller issues--taxing, spending, the global economy, Sunnis and Shia--and missing the central issue: again, our culture. They are populists who vote Republican, and as I have read their letters, I have felt nothing but respect.

But there are two problems. One is that while the presidency, as an office, can actually make real changes in the areas of economic and foreign policy, the federal government has a limited ability to change the culture of America. That is something conservatives used to know. Second, I'm sorry to say it is my sense that Mr. Huckabee is not so much leading a movement as riding a wave. One senses he brilliantly discerned and pursued an underserved part of the voting demographic, and went for it.

To be fair, she's writing on the lesson she learned from her mail, and it's hard to fault that. I agree that if you're a conservative who voted for Huck because you think he's going to change the culture, you're deluding yourself, and making the same mistake that many of us cultural conservatives have done over the past few years. Even so, I have a sense that Noonan, like virtually all the pundit class, underestimates Huckabee's appeal beyond the faithful.

When I read this column, I immediately reflected on the fact that the Dallas Morning News editorial board endorsed Mike Huckabee in the Republican contest. Believe me, you don't get the DMN's endorsement by being a candidate who can only speak to religious and social conservatives. The paper's editorial line on abortion, gay rights and other key questions to theocons is liberal. There are 11 editorial board members, and I'm the only theocon on the panel (though a new guy we brought on might qualify as one). I've said in this space before how startled I was earlier in 2007 when I talked to board members who'd come out of a meeting with Huck really, really impressed. I hadn't been able to attend that meeting, but I fully expected them to emerge chuckling about the hubris of a Baptist minister who thought he might actually have a shot at the presidency. Didn't happen. What they heard was a bright, articulate former governor who struck them as decent, engaged and disarmingly appealing.

Later, when it came time to discuss endorsements, if anything Huckabee's religious conservatism was a liability with our board. What carried the day for him with a majority of the board was his pragmatism, the fact that his religious beliefs (as evidenced by his record as governor) led him to use government to help those who are struggling to make it (see Noonan's point about his solidarity, or seeming solidarity, with Main Street), and the fact that he is pitching himself as a different kind of Republican, one who wants to distance himself from the wearisome partisan trench warfare of the past 15 or so years.

It's no accident that the same editorial board that endorsed Huck in the GOP primary race also endorsed Obama in the Dem contest.

My point is that it's way too simplistic to write Huckabee off as the candidate of theocon identity politics. True, that's his base, but he's got a broader appeal, and a real gift for selling himself. It bears reflecting upon that Huck didn't start to catch fire in Iowa until his magnificent oration at the Iowa straw poll nearly won him that early contest. This is a man who did not pull off this incredible upset of Mitt Moneybags with superior funding or organization. In fact, he's a beggar on those counts. He won in Iowa because of his message, and his ability to connect with voters.

Mind you, he's now going to be tested by fire as he tries to work the same magic in primary states, where he doesn't have the advantage of spending as much time talking to small groups for months, as he's done in Iowa. If I were laying money on the GOP outcome, I'd probably bet on McCain, simply because I believe McCain will win NH, and will quickly become the figure around which the anti-Huck vote will coalesce. I believe Huck can outperform McCain on the campaign trail, and neither candidate has a lot of money in the bank. But McCain is such a well-known commodity nationwide that Huck will have a big challenge in trying to knock him off -- especially given that McCain, should he become the safe harbor for anti-Huck GOP voters, will have the conservative media and intelligentsia behind him, and Republican donors.

Nevertheless, this is a volatile year, and the media and conservative pundits have consistently underestimated Mike Huckabee, and why people might vote for him. The Iowa result should teach humility.