Posted on 01/08/2008 5:07:00 AM PST by bstein80
With a definitive win in last week's Iowa caucus, Mike Huckabee talked himself into the frontrunner position for the Republican presidential nomination. His folksy demeanor and populist promises are central to his appeal, but they mask a strategy designed to divide the conservative movement. If the Republican party chooses to follow Huckabee's lead, it will allow political sweet talk to destroy its greatest electoral and policy-making advantage: the GOP's traditional political consensus built around limiting the size and scope of government.
Mike Huckabee abandoned conservative governance long ago. As governor of Arkansas from 1996-2007, his record on economic issues was long and dismal. He raised the sales tax and passed a tax on gasoline, increasing the state's overall average tax burden by almost 50 percent. Spending shot up more than 65 percent under his leadership. In the current campaign, he supports expensive, restrictive energy legislation, a misguided new national sales tax, and nanny-state notions like a federal smoking ban.
By now, these facts are well known. Fiscal conservatives have spilled gallons of ink decrying his record, and for good reason. Yet the social conservatives who support him should be concerned as well, for Huckabee undermines the GOP's longstanding unity between its traditional and economic wings, a coalition built to serve the goals of social as well fiscal conservatives.
This coalition, solidified in the Reagan years, rests on the principle that freedom--individual and economic--is not in conflict with virtue, but rather is the key to it. Social conservatives are served by promoting economic freedom, and vice-versa. Moreover, the alignment of these interests is the foundation for the GOP's electoral successes, no small thing in the realm of politics. The enthusiasm for Huckabee from the party's socially conservative wing is not just misplaced; it's counterproductive.
(Excerpt) Read more at realclearpolitics.com ...
McCain gave us a glimpse of what he thinks is important the other night in the debate when he spoke of certain bills he would support from congress and the fact that he would “make the authors famous.”
This is what the real John McCain thinks is important, paying worship to members of congress for passing bills he likes.
When it comes down to it, Fred dominates Romney. This is not something that can be measured by how “excited” a candidate appears, by the speed of articulation or quantity of words coming out of his mouth, or even by how well he’s managed the winter olympics.
Leadership is gut level, and we recognize leaders by instinct.
True conservatives are not described in your post.
True conservatives reflect the ideology that has made our country great from the beginning, and that is the combination of liberty and personal responsibility. This ideology in my opinion still carries the most weight with the people.
I assumed “true conservatives” were part of the first group - why wouldn’t you?
Excellent analysis. The only thing I would add is that Wall St. also favors “free” trade, esp. with China, again because of their lust for cheap labor. Main St. pays because productive American jobs are lost. Both lose because our national security is undermined, and our greatest potential enemy is built up.
“I assumed “true conservatives” were part of the first group - why wouldn’t you?”
Because they’re not described there.
I agree that trade is another area where “Main Street” and “Wall Street” can come into conflict.
I am not so certain of your assertions. The first is perhaps to differentiate between the term Conservatives and Republican. The GOP happens to be the party that comes closest to the ideals of conservatives, but it is not the only place where conservatives can be found.
Moreover, I would argue that there are plenty of people who are social conservatives, but economic liberals (many Reagan Democrats) who are easily swayed to be anti-trade and anti-business when times are tough and managers are doing better than they are. And, there are quite a few economic conservatives who are socially laisse faire as well (I would argue this is the group to whom FOX speaks with most of its programming aside from news).
These two groups do not fit naturally together.
I also find it difficult to believe that the goal of a leader should be to be “acceptable to everyone”. Anyone who fits that category will be boring as heck - Fred anyone?
A leader should be a leader. A leader isn’t someone you have to agree with everytime. A leader is a person who you trust is making the right choices most of the time - even if they aren’t the choices you would necessarily make. A leader is a person who inspries confidence and radiates competence.
The GOP is fragmented because there are so many groups of 1-issue voters. If you only care about 1 thing than you do not care about leadership, you just care about 1 issue and the rest is irrelevant. Moreover, the past 6 years of GOP leadership have been with a group of people who often present themselves as “true conservatives” and have been strongly supported by the GOP establishment as such. Their actions and policies tell a different story. And, many Americans do not appear to perceive that things are being run well - whether or not this corresponds to reality is irrelevant - politics is about perceptions.
So, what we have is a party that is increasingly focused on single issues, a leadership that is not very well respected and a group of candidates that appeal only to a niche of voters, or to everyone and no one. It seems to me, that the deficit here is mostly about a leadership deficit based on a fear to tell it like it is. In the current environment, Pat Toomey would have attacked Ronald Reagan for raising taxes in California.
Nowadays, people who have this trait are called heroes. They used to just be called normal citizens.
Excellent point.
“A leader should be a leader.”
Everyone knows the definition of “leader.” We don’t need to change definitions or even presume to establish them. Changing definitions is one of the foremost tactics of leftists.
How is that not " the ideology that has made our country great from the beginning, and that is the combination of liberty and personal responsibility?"
This gave me a chuckle. I liked the Armey article, and your comments on it.
The GOP might be divided, temporarily. But the conservative instinct of the American people is as unified as ever.
The best hope for the leftists is to exploit natural human tendencies to act on superficial emotion (because it is only emotion that is briefly dividing the GOP) and to break down tradition.
Fred brings us together because he represents traditional conservatism, which is the biggest tent of all.
Thank you. Nowadays, even with “Good Samaritan Laws,” the would be hero needs to check with a lawyer before acting. This is the end result of all those laws written by what I call “Totalitarian Mamas.”
“How is that not “ the ideology that has made our country great from the beginning, and that is the combination of liberty and personal responsibility?””
Okay, that’s partly it. But it’s more than a belief about what laws will do. True conservatism is based on a belief about what’s right and what’s wrong.
This unifying belief is ultimately much stronger and longer lasting than the current artificial divisions on issues.
Okay, I can see that it’s more than laws.
However, the political coalitions - governments and the recent Reagan sort of coalitions - do involve an assumption about laws and lawmaking.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.