Understanding Huckabee and Social Conservatives

Sound Politics ^ | Nov. 29, 2007 | Eric Earling

[FocusNexus]

David Horsey's latest takes a stab at understanding the latest twist in the horserace of the Republican nominating contest. Horsey's simplification of Rudy Giuliani as the candidate of national security conservatives, Mitt Romney for "business conservatives," and Mike Huckabee for social conservatives doesn't quite hold true in reality but it makes for a nice cartoon.

My hunch, however, is that observers with little more than indirect experience with social conservatives may be a bit miffed in full at how Huckabee can be rising in Iowa and in the South given his well-documented problems with economic/small government conservatives. For one, Huckabee's rise isn't merely a product of social conservatives, it's specifically a product of Evangelicals. That's an important point to understand even in the context of politics around here and the local GOP.

.....

Not only do many Evangelicals not truly embrace the more libertarian aspects of conservative thought, they outright disagree:

.......

Thus, Evangelicals in that strain of thought don't necessarily have a problem with Mike Huckabee's fondness for big government if they share the same values he seeks to impose (his support of a national ban on smoking in public places being perhaps the most overt). They likewise are less likely to blanch at Huckabee's sometimes embrace of less conservative domestic policies, including higher taxes.

Consequently, observers left thinking Huckabee voters might be easily dismayed by his nanny-state tendencies or some of his other domestic policy ideas outside of conservative orthodoxy are likely to be proven wrong. Such issues may hurt Huckabee a bit with Evangelicals currently backing him, but his ethical problems in Arkansas are likely to me more of a problem for him with that crowd if someone like the Club for Growth can find a way to use that weakness effectively.

[guitarist]

People on the right should grow up, and take the long view. Huck is a great candidate, though he is troublesome on a few issues. (Note that he is moving our way on those issues, as are other candidates. Why shoot the guy who is headed your way to make peace.) Giuliani is pro-abortion, so can’t get our primary vote. But we like him on some other issues. McCain and Romney are nice guys, with various pluses and minuses. Why can’t people just get the whole package in context??

[Amalie]

“Such issues may hurt Huckabee a bit with Evangelicals currently backing him, but his ethical problems in Arkansas are likely to me more of a problem for him with that crowd if someone like the Club for Growth can find a way to use that weakness effectively.”

Your point on context is well-taken, and I think we can talk about many of the candidates as far better alternatives then any of their Dem opponents. Huckabee is getting his trial by fire now; we’ll see if he withers or is refined by it.

These ethical issues will certainly be aired, but after reading most of them over the last couple of weeks, I have to agree that most of it appears to be smoke-and-mirror accusations by a Democratic majority looking to spread muck. If Huckabee ends up having BIG ethical clay feet, that would be a real problem for most social conservatives, but I think such issues would have been vetted in public by now if they held water.

It has been shown that the Club for Growth took a $125,000 donation from one of Huckabee’s more libertarian opponents from Arkansas; I am not trusting their take on him (and frankly think some of their orthodoxy is problematic overall).

[guitarist]

I have loved Club for Growth and Huck. I think that where they clash, CFG has more credibility. But I still like Huck. He has pledged to veto tax increases, for crying out loud. What do people want, a perfect past?