Huckasplitter

January 13th, 2008 By: Former Contributor | Tags:

Is Mike Huckabee carrying out a “scorched earth” campaign where he doesn’t care if he destroys the party and splits the conservative movement into its base component parts?

Sure looks that way:

“Many of us who have been Republicans out of conviction . . . the social conservatives,” he told reporters, “were welcomed in the party as long as we sort of kept our place, but Lord help us if we ever stood forward and said we would actually like to lead the party.”


Mark Levin:

Huckabee continues to use his faith as a weapon against those who question not his faith, but his political populism — much of which he shares with secular progressives. And he is clearly hoping to stir up resentment among Evangelical Christians against the other elements of the conservative movement and Republican Party as a way of encouraging them to vote in the caucuses and primaries. This is a tactic right out of Saul Alinsky’s playbook. Of course he wants us to believe the Reagan coalition is dead because he cannot win with it intact. But he cannot win either the nomination or presidency with the narrow focus of his appeal. This is why I find Mike Huckabee’s tactics and candidacy so deplorable.

For myself, I could care less if the evangelical social cons threw a tantrum and walked out of the party and the movement. They have always been willing to fall on their swords and lose elections rather than compromise so what’s the big deal? Less political baggage in my book. And with them gone, I trust that many former Republicans as well as libertarians would feel a lot more comfortable about casting their lot with a small government, fiscally conservative party.

If they want to promote a candidate whose ideas about a nanny state include a “Christian government” watching over us as opposed to a secular one, let them try that out on the electorate. Just do it from the obscurity of a third party rather than the floor of the GOP national convention in September.

I have made my feelings known about Huckabee on this blog. I believe him to be a shady operator who, as Levin points out, uses religion as a club against his opponents while setting himself up to be a “superior Christian” to the other candidates. The mindless enthusiasm for this “populist” only shows that the religious right is not ready or worthy to lead any party that purports to represent a polyglot collection of neocons, Main Street, Traditional, and economic conservatives.

I know that many social cons do not support Huckabee and are supporting other candidates who also espouse socially conservative positions. I have no problem with that whatsoever. Those other candidates are not using their religion as a wedge issue in order to maximize their support among one faction or another in the conservative movement. Huckabee, on the other hand, sees his only chance at success in breaking the party and the movement by throwing his weight around as a “Christian leader” while feeding the resentment and paranoia of some evangelicals who think opposition to his candidacy is the result of his religion.

Huckabee will be taken down eventually. There is no way 50% of the party will ever support his candidacy. But the damage he can do between now and then may be irreparable by cracking once and for all the conservative coalition – already under enormous pressure – and destroying any hopes for a GOP victory next November.

Share and Enjoy:
  • Digg
  • del.icio.us
  • Technorati
  • SphereIt
  • NewsVine
  • TailRank
  • Reddit
  • StumbleUpon

This website uses IntenseDebate comments, but they are not currently loaded because either your browser doesn't support JavaScript, or they didn't load fast enough.

  1. Michael van der Galien
    January 13th, 2008 at 21:38
    Reply | Quote | #1

    I believe him to be a shady operator who, as Levin points out, uses religion as a club against his opponents while setting himself up to be a “superior Christian” to the other candidates. The mindless enthusiasm for this “populist” only shows that the religious right is not ready or worthy to lead any party that purports to represent a polyglot collection of neocons, Main Street, Traditional, and economic conservatives.

    There’s something to that, although you have to realize that the socons have been an important part of the conservative coalition. Without them, just as without fiscal conservatives, Reagan’s coalition is indeed dead.

    The question then becomes: can you replace the chricons with another voting bloc?

    Huckabee, on the other hand, sees his only chance at success in breaking the party and the movement by throwing his weight around as a “Christian leader” while feeding the resentment and paranoia of some evangelicals who think opposition to his candidacy is the result of his religion.

    I agree with that. He does that on purpose. And it should worry Republicans tremendously. He’s using faith like Barack Obama is using race at this point in time.

    Huckabee will be taken down eventually. There is no way 50% of the party will ever support his candidacy. But the damage he can do between now and then may be irreparable by cracking once and for all the conservative coalition – already under enormous pressure – and destroying any hopes for a GOP victory next November.

    Agreed.

  2. utsu
    January 13th, 2008 at 22:41
    Reply | Quote | #2

    I think that some of the christian conservatives’ positions aren’t conservative (scepticism, unforeseen consequences, considerations of government bumbling) at all but exclusively stemming from religion.

    See, the argument that civil unions for gays will somehow harm society is very weak and redundant anyway since the government is supposed to give out certain perks to two individuals who have made a choice to make some sort of… Twohood. Whatever. There is no scepticism or worry about unforeseen consequences in the position against civil unions – mostly its just a case of wanting to prevent people from being recognized because they brake an arbitrarily selected biblical code.

    Of course, if you think one part of the bible should be a legitimate basis for a political position then why not the next one? Why are some christians ready to allow adulterers being teachers while mustering horror at the prospect of gay teachers – aren’t both practices considered immoral?

    This is why no political position based on a holy scripture – or any large text – can be accepted wholly. Where will it stop? The slippery slope argument - "one minute gays get civil unions 
    and the ensuing perks, next the polyamorous and soon love and marriage is taken casually bla bla" - works the other way around – "Will the christians settle for keeping gays from the military? Will they settle for trying for sodomy laws? Maybe they will want the government to deny adulterers some non-constitutional rights as well?"

    Anyway, if Huckabee and those among his supporters that get off on his self-martyrizing, over-reaching and exclusionary spiel choke on all they are trying
    to swallow then they only have themselves to blame. They’ve 
    had more influence than the quality of their arguments have earned them.

Comments are closed.

PoliGazette Comments Policy

PoliGazette encourages comments from all viewpoints, especially those that disagree. Comments submitted must, however, adhere to the following standards. Comments that violate these standards may be edited or deleted without notice at the sole discretion of the editors. Commenters who repeatedly or egregiously violate these standards or who attempt to argue publicly with editors regarding the comments policy may be banned from commenting further.

(1) Comments should address the substantive content of the post. Comments that repeatedly or blatantly misrepresent the content of the post or of others' comments are not welcome. Comments that respond to something other than which the contributor or commenter may have said are irrelevant and should not be posted.

(2) Comments should avoid vulgarity as well as racial, ethnic, religious, or sexual bigotry.

(3) Comments should not personally attack the character, personal integrity, or professional reputation of any PoliGazette contributor or of other commenters.

(4) Comments should reflect the contributions of the commenters themselves and should not include extensive cut-and-paste reproductions of others' words except insofar as necessary to supplement the commenter's own arguments. Link spam, trackback spam, and propaganda spam will be instantly deleted.

(5) Public figures are considered open to all substantive criticism of their policies and statements. Comments that present objectively false factual information about public figures (i.e. "Obama is a Muslim") or that attack public figures by attacking their families are not welcome. Comments that merely repeat slogans for or against a candidate without engaging in substantive comment are not welcome.

Questions or challenges to these policies or their application should be directed to the editors by email only.