Peggy Noonan: Huckabee’s a Christianist
In the Wall Street Journal column, conservative columnist – and former Reagan speech writer – Peggy Noonan takes a closer look at Mike Huckabee’s Christmas ad, his character, his style, and his campaign strategy. It’s an interesting read, I suggest you all read it in its entirety (as usual, it’s a pleasure to just read her column, no matter what she says; her style is superb).
With regards to his Christmas ad she writes that she’s 100% sure that they put the bookshelf – strangely without any books in them – behind him in a way that resembled a cross on purpose; that they knew that people would react – negatively – to it; but that this was the intention. Huckabee and his campaign know that many traditional conservatives, moderates and liberals don’t quite support mixing religion and politics to such a large degree, but they mixed it in such a way that Huckabee can defend himself and play the victim (while appealing to the Evangelical base of course; ‘war on Christmas!’).
She calls the ad “sweet-appalling”: a by her invented word that means “this is nice” and “this is creepy” at the same time.
Noonan argues that Huckabee is constantly playing the religion card, but that he does so in a very clever way. He’s got charisma and he’s got this strange aura of trustworthiness over him. She compares him to Bill Clinton and George W. Bush:
Mr. Huckabee reminds me of two governors who became president, Bill Clinton and George W. Bush. Like Mr. Clinton, he is a natural, charming, bright and friendly. Yet one senses something unsavory there, something not so nice. Like Mr. Bush, his approach to politics seems, at bottom, highly emotional, marked by great spurts of feeling and mighty declarations as to what the Lord wants. The problem with this, and with Bushian compassionate conservatism, which seems to have an echo in Mr. Huckabee’s Christianism, is that to the extent it is a philosophy, it is not a philosophy that allows debate. Because it comes down to “This is what God wants.” This is not an opener of discussion but a squelcher of it. It doesn’t expand the process, it frustrates it.
Notice how she throws in the word “Christianism” right there: quite revealing (and it’s a shame doesn’t give a hat tip to Andrew Sullivan). I do agree with her, though, that if you’re going to use the word to describe certain politicians, it’s applicable on Huckabee.
More: “Huckabee’s critics say he’s a manipulator with a mean streak and little knowledge of the world” yet, he comes across as kind, caring and compassionate.
And he exploits that – just like religion – for all its worth.
He’s great at playing the victim Noonan writes, but there’s one problem with the victim card: Evangelicals aren’t the victims of the conservative coalition. There’s no war on Evangelicals within the Republican Party.
Mr. Huckabee is clever. He puts forth his policies, such as they are, based on a faith-based understanding of public policy, and if you disagree with his policies, or take a hard shot at them, or at him, he suggests the reason is that you look down on evangelicals. This creates a new fissure in a party already riven by fissures. He has been accused by some in the conservative press of tearing the party apart, but it was being torn apart before he got on the scene. His rise is not a cause of collapse but an expression of it.
He plays the victim well. Others want to “trip him up,” but he’ll “get my message out there.” His foes are “Wall Street-Washington” insiders, elitists. On the “Today” show he said his critics are the type who never liked evangelical Christians. When one of them runs, these establishment types say ” ‘Oh my gosh, now they’re serious, they don’t want to just show up and vote, they actually would want to be part of the discussion and really talk about issues that include hunger and poverty and things.’ ”
This is a form of populist manipulation. Evangelical Christians have been strong in the Republican Party since the 1970s. President Bush and Karl Rove helped them become more important. The suggestion that they are a small and abused group within the GOP is strange. It is as if the Reagan Democrats, largely Catholic and suburban, who buoyed the Republican Party from the late ’70s through 2004, and who were very much part of the GOP coalition, decided to announce that Catholics have been abused within the party, and it’s time for Christmas commercials with floating Miraculous Medals.
That sounds about right to me. Most criticism directed towards Huckabee is in response to his proposed policies, to his lack of knowledge of the world, to his unconservative fiscal policies as governor as Arkansas, etc. Of course, there’s also a lot of criticism of the way he mixes religion and politics: but that doesn’t mean that people are attacking Evangelicals, it simply means that they believe that there should at least be some separation between religion / Church and state.
The question now is: will conservatives rally behind the Republican nominee whoever he is? The way the fiscal conservatives and traditional conservatives have declared war on Huckabee and his supporters gives me the impression that it’ll be very difficult for the nominee to unite the party once again. And, if the party’s not united, it will not win the 2008 presidential elections.
More than ever before it seems to me that it’s important that the Republican voters elect a good compromise candidate. As I see it, Huckabee is unacceptable to especially fiscal conservatives, whereas Giuliani – for instance – is unacceptable to social conservatives. This means that the only good compromise candidates are John McCain and Mitt Romney (and Fred Thompson if he would campaign a bit harder / convince the voters that he really wants to become America’s next president).
So that’s my take on the situation: Republicans would be wise to nominate either John McCain or Mitt Romney. The other candidates won’t be able to reunite the party.
And I think that Romney probably has an edge over McCain due to the latter’s support for campaign finance reforms and the immigration bill earlier this year. On the other hand, McCain is doing well in national polls against both Obama and Clinton. What’s more, he has proven to be knowledge and principled about the Iraq War; he deserves credit for that.
Huckabee might be the choice of social conservatives, but he’ll have a tremendously hard time to reunite the GOP, let alone to win the elections. If he becomes the nominee, independents will support the Democratic candidate, simply because they don’t wish to vote for someone who presents himself as the second coming of Christ.
The other Republican candidates don’t have that problem.
Watching fiscal conservatives shit a brick over Huckabee has been really great. For months they were telling people to just take one for the team and vote for Giuliani. Now that the shoe is on the other foot, they are acting like children.
I agree that you need a better compromise candidate but tell me this. Which 2004 states would go to Giuliani and which would go to Huckabee in the general. I don’t think Giuliani would have a chance in general. Huckabee wouldn’t win more states but probably wouldn’t lose much (maybe some Western states and possibly Ohio).
Still my vote is with McCain and would love Huckabee as the vice. No matter how bad this statement is it’s the truth, social conservatives won’t vote for a Mormon or a social liberal.
Sorry should read "which 2004 states that went Bush".
I tend to agree. I think that Republicans were way off when they argued that Giuliani could (easily) win the national elections. He can’t. McCain is a much better candidate in that regard (as is Romney).
I understood that.
My sentiments exactly, Bob. Fiscal conservatives were happy enough to open the big tent to social conservatives, as long as they didn’t actually expect the party to give them anything in return for that support and as long as they’d be happy to keep voting Republican after they outlived their usefulness to the party.
And Huckabee is right when he says that those who oppose evangelicals are doing so because they don’t like ‘compassionate conservatism’. They should be honest about that- and then each faction of the party can define how much they are willing to compromise. Fiscal conservatives should grasp that much of the country does accept bigger government, so if we want to remain relevant we should find a candidate who can advocate for a more federalist approach and smarter, more efficient government, not just ’small government’. They should also grasp that in Iowa, as in lots of other heartland states, no one is shocked or upset at a Christian candidate openly expressing his Christian faith, in fact it’s a net positive because there are plenty of people who are tired of being told that we should all be hypersensitive to such expressions.
As Bob says, it’s rather ironic, isn’t it, that when evangelical leaders said they’d leave the party if Giuliani was the nominee they were loudly criticized for being childish. Now the fiscal conservatives say they can’t accept Huckabee and they’re fighting tooth and nail to bring him down- even if the voters say that he’s their man. If the traditional Republican elite wants to force a schism and lose badly in ‘08, they’re certainly doing a good job so far.
There’s some truth to what you say Christine, but you shouldn’t forget that the fiscal conservatives aren’t talking about breaking away from the party.
Having said that, I think that if I were an American conservative I would be worried by the rhetoric. Listen to Ed’s BTR show from yesterday. The first 30 minutes deal with this subject.
Michael,
Here is the problem with McCain and social conservatives, as much as Huckabee is a Christianist, McCain is a candidate who enjoys poking a stick in the eye of evangelical voters. Recall the firing of the two people he hired to work on "Faith based" projects who complained they and their constituent group was treated with indifference and/or hostility. This is in keeping with what we know about McCain, he does not like the "Christian right".
Mitt Romney has purchased lots of "Christian right" leaders but he is not acceptable to social conservatives. 50 dollar abortions are not the only problem with a fake prolifer whose wife donated to Planned Parenthood. Reagan was prochoice prior to Roe v. Wade and was always bitterly opposed to abortion on demand. Anyone trying to make an analogy of the knowledge of fetal development in 1968 with 1994 is either a liar or massively ignorant and I do not peg Mitt as the latter. What fits with a liar meme for Socons? How about lying about guns (lifelong hunter, NRA endorsement which were both complete lies), lying about immigration (was not strong on this issue as governor), lying about gay rights (said Kennedy had not done enough and took a while to decide whether to support or oppose the gay marriage decision) and lying about his beliefs (Mormons and Christians do not have the same view of Jesus).
The only compromise candidate at a brokered convention acceptable to Socons and Fiscal conservatives is the only prominent federalist running, Fred Dalton Thompson. I suspect that McCain will be his VP and America will know we are safe, back on the path to fiscal responsibility (he was not there as the GOP Congress bloated our government and sold their principles) and continuing with strict constructionist judges (like John Roberts whom he shepherded through confirmation).
To bad Thompson puts people to sleep faster than counting sheep.
John: yes, that’s a major problem for McCain. As is his support for the immigration bill earlier this year and his support for the campaign finance reform, which many conservatives saw as an attack on the freedom of speech.
I disagree. Why? He lacks the energy and the passion. If he would’ve acted as if he truly wants it, he would’ve been the frontrunner already. He would’ve gotten a lot of support, but… he failed to bank on it because of his ‘lazy’ or dispassionate attitude.
Exactly.
No, Michael, fiscal conservatives aren’t talking of breaking away but that’s because they see themselves as the power brokers of the party, so their version of this is to throw a hissy fit and attack Huckabee.
I did see some of what you’re referring to on Ed’s blog- and I agreed with what I saw. People need to take a deep breath and think about what they are doing before they destroy any chance the party has of going forward. The factions have to negotiate a truce and all agree that they’re going to back the eventual candidate. Personally I think that both ’sides’ should agree that they’ll consider electability, so that if it looks like a social conservative is more electable then the fiscal conservatives should accept that and vice versa. At the same time though, the side who ‘gives’ should be able to set some terms: say, for example, that they’ll accept Huckabee if he’ll agree to shift a bit on economic issues and be more fiscally conservative- focus on making government work better, certainly not on making it bigger for compassionate conservative causes. Or make support of him conditional on taking a stronger stance on immigration.
Or if it goes the other way, of course, the social conservatives should be willing to support McCain or Thompson or Romney (I would say Giuliani but it just doesn’t seem like he gets enough support from any constituency to be relevant)- perhaps while expecting that they will not allow social or religious issues to be completely buried.
I guess, Peggy had never read "Frankenstein"
Yes, she had great input in the rise of the Huckabee :
Don’t cry, Peggy
No reply to the accurate discussion of Guy Smiley’s record? Mitt Romney is not acceptable to social conservatives, and fiscal conservatives should be very afraid of the mandatory health care he supports. Mitt Romney would depress the base in swing states like Florida, Louisiana, Kentucky and Ohio. Once his pro gay, pro abortion past becomes widely known people will not be excited for him. Would Hillary create enough hate to allow him to win? I suspect many would hold their nose and vote for him in a general, but I also suspect a fractured Republican party would lose to anyone but the Princess of darkness.
I agree with your assessment John. The problem is that there aren’t any clear uniting candidate. Thompson was the supposed to be the one but he bores people and like Michael has said doesn’t even look like he wants to win.
McCain also has the problem that he rubs Republicans the wrong way. Not just the Christian Right, he also has trouble with the establisment and traditional conservatives (immigration in particular).
Disagreed on that one. It seems quite obvious to me that Romney will be able to appeal to independents, just as McCain. And Thompson: lack passion, conviction and energy. What’s more, Romney won’t break up the GOP: Huckabee and Giuliani might, but Romney? No sir.
Yes, but in the end they’ve got to rally behind the nominee. They did so in the past, they’ve got to do it again.
What independents does Romney appeal to? His flip flopping on social issues or immigration? His back pedaling on health care?
I just really don’t see any reason for an independent to like him.
It fits in the liar meme. None of the specific reasons I think Mitt fails have been addressed. "Depends on the definition of is" can now stand alongside "Depends on your definition of the word saw". Mitt Romney lies again about seeing his dad march with MLK.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/us_and_americas/article3082350.ece
I keep reading the dismissal of Fred Thompson as boring that is just not true. He is not boring or lazy, that tag has been put in the coverage by those who want a moderate candidate and those who want a democrat president. It is a characterization that seems to fit until you pay attention and find out that he is a great leader, humorous, and prepared. The rest of these guys are spellbinding? The only one who is interesting is Huckeberry and once you listen to him the spell wears off quickly. You are all on the money about splitting the party and McCain has made a career of stabbing the base in the back to play up to the liberal media, I might not vote. Lets stop being foolish dupes to the spin and get behind Thompson, he is campaigning well now in Iowa and getting great endorsements. The base will come home.
Theo: the problem isn’t that people – not at this blog at least – want to portray him as being lazy and lacking in passion: he presents himself like that.
If he would present himself differently, he would’ve been the frontrunner weeks ago already
While I think Bob and John are being unnecessarily harsh on Romney, I have to agree that I don’t really see his appeal to moderates/independents. I’m not that well versed in political history, but it always seems to me that the people who really capture that group do it on the basis of charisma and good communication skills. It’s hard to say exactly what undecided voters want (and it probably varies depending on the issues of the day) but what they all seem to have in common is that they want someone who will be persuasive, and that has more to do with the candidate’s persona than his/her policy positions. As long as the positions aren’t too far to the left or right, the middle ground is gained by the way one presents oneself, I think (which is why Huckabee seems like a winning candidate to me, if he can get enough fiscal conservatives to go along, and if he doesn’t overdo the Christian meme to lose the centrists who fear ‘Christianism’.)