The Anti-Huckabee Party?
Posted on October 17th, 2009
by Daniel Larison |
|
Andrew Stuttaford cites a new Rasmussen poll of Republican presidential preferences showing some sizeable support for Huckabee, and he wonders if this means that the GOP will become the “party of Huckabee.” I think this is extremely unlikely. While Huckabee was officially the second-biggest vote-getter in the primaries last year, he achieved this mostly through perseverance and concentrated support from evangelical voters. Had Romney continued to compete and waste his money on what would still have been a losing bid, it is not certain that Huckabee could have managed his second place finish.
Approximately a third of Republican primary voters backed Huckabee, and slightly less than a third of the Republican respondents would now like to see him as the nominee, so he retains a considerable base of support that he had built up last year. Does this mean that the GOP is or is going to be the “party of Huckabee”? Only in the sense that in terms of sheer numbers Huckabee’s voters and sympathizers make up the largest bloc of Republicans. The trouble is that Huckabee consolidates this bloc behind him at the expense of losing most others. The strange thing is that Huckabee’s charisma and style make it less likely that this would be replicated in a general election: where Palin won enduring Republican devotion by being strident and combative, the good culture warrior, Huckabee has typically cultivated a style on the national stage laced with humor and self-deprecation that seemed to make him less polarizing.
He is able to do this because his record on social issues is already solid and does not need to be emphasized (as McCain’s was), exaggerated (as Palin’s was) or invented out of thin air (as Romney’s was). I have thought for a while that Huckabee’s personality could have some of the appealing all-things-to-all-people quality that Obama had during the election. If the economy remains a major issue in the next election, as it most likely will be, the sheer disgust economic conservatives still have for him could be worn almost as a badge of pride in the general election. An early opponent of the bailout, Huckabee could tap into populist dissatisfaction with the coziness of corporations and government without being pigeonholed as nothing more than an obsessed tax-cutter.
Huckabee isn’t going to have that chance. Even if it seems irrational, movement activists who are not primarily interested in social issues distrust Huckabee intensely, and they will work to block him and deny him funding just as they did last time. The anti-Huckabee sentiment among movement activists is a useful reminder that all the Republican culture war defenses of Palin during the general election were aimed at mobilizing all the people whose candidate, Huckabee, they had just spent the previous 18 months mocking and ridiculing with all of the same language used against Palin. For turnout purposes, the GOP still finds Huckabee’s people useful, but its leaders and activists will not tolerate Huckabee taking the lead in the party as the nominee.
The effect this will have, as Stuttaford’s post suggests, is that most Catholic, mainline Protestant and secular Republicans will rally to whichever anti-Huckabee candidate appears strongest. This will most likely mean a coalition of voters arrayed behind Romney, who will then be a far weaker draw in the general election than Huckabee would have been. At first, that sounds implausible. Surely the more “moderate,” less “sectarian” candidate should be able to win more support, right? No, not really, because the things that make Romney more attractive to non-evangelicals in the GOP also force him to spend more time trying to prove that evangelicals and social conservatives can accept him. Aside from the complication that his religion introduces into this, this means that Romney has to emphasize social issues, on which he has no credibility, and public professions of religious faith, which are some of the things that so many Republicans and independents find viscerally unappealing about what they perceive to be the norm in Republican politics. Huckabee does not need to do as much of this because he would already have much of the right locked down. Like McCain, Romney will continually be trying to satisfy people on the right who cannot muster much enthusiasm for him, but who will wrongly conclude that he is more “electable.” That could involve another desperate VP nomination to generate interest or a campaign that actually moves right after the primaries are over. Fear of their own evangelicals could lead Republicans to embrace a technoratic wonk whom most voters will not be able to trust and whom most conservatives grudgingly accept because he is not Huckabee.
Filed under: politics
You’ve got some work to do on your Romney research. You’ve got him pegged all wrong. We could argue that he may have been pro-choice for political expediency reasons in one of the bluest states in the nation when running for governor, but he governed as a social conservative while governor (http://www.freerepublic.com/~unmarkedpackage/#abortion) and held those beliefs for decades before that and continues to hold those views until today. He won’t emphasize social issues and he doesn’t need to. As they said before, “it’s the economy stupid.”
In any event, even if he did have to highlight his social issues
he’d be fine – - you can see this flyer for Romney’s 1994 run against Kennedy for the US Senate here: http://www.freerepublic.com/~unmarkedpackage/#mittnolib It is clear that Romney held the conservative position on 23 out of 24 positions way back then. He continued to hold those positions throughout his governorship and was lauded by social conservative and family values advocates while governor for his efforts on their behalf. See their letter of support here: http://www.evangelicalsformitt.org/massleaders/massleaders.pdf
Romney is the perfect antidote to Obama’s naivete and inexperience. He is seen as worldly, competent, experienced and confident. He also ran Massachusetts as a fiscal conservative and has real world experience in the business world which will be paramount in voters’ minds after this failed Obama experiment.
Social conservatives who do their homework will see that they can trust Romney if they review his actual governing record. He doesn’t need to prove anything to them. While independents and conservative democrats will not be turned off by Romney, but instead will be attracted to his gravitas, proven record of succcess and demonstrated competence in economic matters. It will be about jobs and who has the track record and vision to stimulate the economy and create jobs. Nobody even comes close to Romney in that regard.
That letter posted on the evangelicalsformitt.com site written by Massachusetts social conservative leaders is a powerful testament to Romney’s commitment to family values. An excerpt:
“All of this may explain why John J. Miller, the national political reporter of National Review, has
written that “a good case can be made that Romney has fought harder for social conservatives
than any other governor in America, and it is difficult to imagine his doing so in a more daunting
political environment.”
Since well before 2003, we have been laboring in the trenches of Massachusetts, fighting for the
family values you and we share. It is difficult work indeed – not for the faint of heart. In this
challenging environment, Governor Romney has proven that he shares our values, as well as our
determination to protect them.
For four years, Governor Romney has been right there beside us, providing leadership on key
issues – whether it was politically expedient to do so or not. He has stood on principle, and we
have benefited greatly from having him with us.”
I found this article to be very insightful. I was introduced to Huckabee in 2007, researched his record instead of listening to those who distorted it, voted for him in the primary, and to this day consider him to be the best candidate in the Republican field.
He has ten years executive experience, re-elected twice and with good African American support in a state that has only had three Republican governors in it’s history. Strongest and most credible on social issues (note that for the first time since Roe v. Wade more Americans poll pro-life than pro-abortion.)
He is a natural communicator and beats anybody I’ve ever seen at being able to have a civil conversation with people who hold views that differ from his; one in which he maintains his own conviction, but treats people with respect and not condescension or derision. He is disarming–and that goes a long way toward being able to motivate people to work together.
There is a big difference to me between a strong but civil leader and a weak-willed pleaser like we all know who.
I think many of his policy ideas are creative, bold, and common sense.
Yet, the ‘powers that be’ in the Republican party pretend he doesn’t exist. Not only that, they disparage those who do support him as a necessary ‘evil’ they have to endure to get past the primaries.
Daniel, I am wondering how Huckabee’s situation compares to Reagan’s. (I’m not necessarily comparing the two men, just the situation.) Wasn’t Reagan an anti-establishment candidate initially?” (I was too young to vote for Reagan.) If so, how was the establishment circumvented? How was Reagan elected without their approval and support? Or did that change once he was the Republican nominee?
Can you envision a similar scenario happening with Huckabee? He surprised convential wisdom in the primaries last year–getting at least as far as Romney with about a tenth of the resources. Could he surprise again?
Who do you think would make a good VP with Huckabee at the top of the ticket in a national election. Someone like General Petraeus, since Huckabee, even though he is intimately acquainted with and supportive of Israel, needs foreign policy creds?
Perhaps I misread you, but I detect a fair amount of sympathy in this post for Huckabee.
Which is fair enough (again, if I’m reading you right), but his foreign policy seems run along the “crazily hawkish in a bid to get mainstream respect” lines that he truly scares me. He doesn’t sound so different on that front than Guilliani, to my ears anyway, and I suspect he might believe it.
Enjoy Greece and your time with your loved one!
Not so fast Larison.
What do you estimate the percent WEC(White Evangelical Christian) is in the GOP now?
In 2008 they were at 50%.
People have been leaving the GOP……but not WECs.
WECs make up 20% of the electorate.
Republicans make up 22% of the electorate.
It is my hypothesis that the GOP is becoming a nearly pure party of WECs.
Has Huck dumped his devotion to the consumption tax? Its “prebate” schemes looked far too complicated to be wise in the best of times, let alone in an economic crisis.
Huck has the Walmart, tea-party repubs now, 3 years from the election! Huck has the logical, populist-friendly FairTax. Huck has a show. His wave is just gettin’ bigger. He will get the all-important swing voters, if a third party doesn’t.
The usual shrewd take Daniel. I enjoy Huckabee because he’s an entertaining man but in social terms he’s where Palin and all the other backswoodmen are. Out of an awful field it’s really hard to decide whose the worst. Palin despite all the right wing enthusiasm isn’t a viable candidate for the simple reason that she doesn’t have the intellectual capacity to sustain a 18 month intensive primary season. There’s no way she can hide from the media and just appear on Fox News the whole time so even if she competed which I don’t think she will, the light bulb is rapidly going to come on with half the GOP including some of her softer admirers. As of now the likely candidate looks like Romney who can handle himself well but as last time is going to be forced into more corkscrew maneuvers than a circus contortionist. He could coopt Huckbabee as his VP I suppose. On the economy btw it’s only going to be an issue to the extent Obama is going to ask like someone else I remember “are you better off now than four years ago.”
I think the devolution of the GOP into a purely White Christian party is going to force Huckabee onto the ticket in some capacity….either top or bottom.
mittisit4prez and the other Romney supporters forget one important thing: if you’re explaining, you’re losing.
Daniel’s right. Some of the smartest poll-watchers and political hands on the Democratic side have known for years that Huckabee was the one candidate they should fear the most. Following is what Chris Bowers, then of MyDD, now of OpenLeft, said of Huckabee in August 2006 (!!!):
“Just then, a smart friend of mine reminded me of the real danger on the Republican side: Mike Huckabee. Man, that guy wouldn’t have the baggage that nearly every national Republican spokesperson has now. He also doesn’t have the overt racism and neo-fascism of Geroge Allen. He doesn’t have the dead-cat charisma of Bill Frist (the guy who finally makes Bob Dole seem warm and exciting). Huckabee would be a serious threat. Keep your eyes peeled, and start your oppo work on that guy.”
If the Republicans ever get the good sense to promote him, the Democrats will be nervous. His only Achilles heel is a lack of foreign policy chops, which he could easily remedy the way Obama did with his selection of Biden.
Someone explain to me why a Huckabee/Powell (or someone similar) ticket wouldn’t have appeal to the middle, and reverse the ennui in the non-evangelical part of the GOP base, while still keeping the evangelicals fired up? Then explain why it will never happen.
If mittisit4prez then the Republic is surely doomed. More surely than it already is. Mitt was a Massachusetts RINO until he decided to run for President. He didn’t run for a second term as Gov because he knew had had to start his opportunistic move to the right and couldn’t do so while running for a second term.
If the economy continues to stagnate then Mitt doesn’t stand a prayer. Mitt is intimately associated with Wall Street and big finance. Most Americans blame Mitt and his associates for getting us into this mess. His “business” experience – all consulting and private equity, he’s never actually built a business that produced anything – will be more of a liability than an asset in the current environment. A populist like Huckabee should be able to destroy Romney in the primaries.