Mike Huckabee and libertarians

TheNextRight.com ^ | November 20, 2008 | Jon Henke

[Delacon]

We've seen a lot of social conservatives upset over today's intemperate attack by Kathleen Parker (Note: she was unnecessarily contemptuous, but her point that "the Republican Party -- and conservatism with it -- eventually will die out unless religion is returned to the privacy of one's heart where it belongs" is worth serious consideration).

Well, I am a libertarian, so let's talk about the Kathleen Parker of the social conservative crowd: Mike Huckabee.

This week, Huckabee called libertarians the "real threat" to the Republican Party...

In a chapter titled "Faux-Cons: Worse than Liberalism," Huckabee identifies what he calls the "real threat" to the Republican Party: "libertarianism masked as conservatism." ... "I don't take issue with what they believe, but the smugness with which they believe it," writes Huckabee, who raised some taxes as governor and cut deals with his state's Democratic legislature. "Faux-Cons aren't interested in spirited or thoughtful debate, because such an endeavor requires accountability for the logical conclusion of their argument." 

We've come quite some way since 1975, when Reagan said "I believe the very heart and soul of conservatism is libertarianism."  

Oh, and it happens that Huckabee does, in fact, take issue with what we believe. In May of 2008, Huckabee called blamed election losses on Republicans being too "libertarian" (this is obviously some strange usage of the word "libertarian" that I was previously unaware of), accused us of being un-American (my response to that is unprintable, but I would be glad to say it to his face if he wanted to repeat his comment to my face) and then proceeded to make the standard, cartoonish Democratic argument against libertarianism.

The greatest threat to classic Republicanism is not liberalism; it's this new brand of libertarianism, which is social liberalism and economic conservatism, but it's a heartless, callous, soulless type of economic conservatism because it says "look, we want to cut taxes and eliminate government. If it means that elderly people don't get their Medicare drugs, so be it. If it means little kids go without education and healthcare, so be it." Well, that might be a quote pure economic conservative message, but it's not an American message. ...

If you have a breakdown in the social structure of a community, it's going to result in a more costly government ... police on the streets, prison beds, court costs, alcohol abuse centers, domestic violence shelters, all are very expensive. What's the answer to that? Cut them out? Well, the libertarians say "yes, we shouldn't be funding that stuff."

Excepting the anarcho-capitalists (who basically aren't a part of the electoral equation, anyway), I don't know a single libertarian who says we shouldn't fund police, prisons or courts.  Most libertarians who are aligned with the Right or the Republican Party are less concerned about the few billion that Huckabee describes here than they are about the few trillion other dollars the government is spending, or the uncountable additional costs of unnecessary regulation and legislation. (This is a perfect illustration of my problem #3 with Mike Huckabee, noted below)

So, let me boil down my problems with Mike Huckabee.

• Huckabee is a Rawlsian liberal + social conservative: Mike Huckabee describes his political philosophy as (a) the Golden Rule ("Do unto others as you would have them do unto to you", and (b) a passage from the Bible ("Inasmuch as you have done to the least of these my brethren, you have done it unto me").   This is not "conservatism"; it is basic Rawlsian liberalism.

• Huckabee makes little distinction between religion and politics: It's not that he's religious.  It's that Mike Huckabee appears to be incapable of drawing a meaningful distinction between religion and politics.  For instance, in 1997, Governor Huckabee held up a disaster relief bill for weeks because he objected to its description of floods and tornados as "an act of God".   He explained his position on another bill by saying "I drink a different kind of Jesus juice."  He has asserted a Christian duty to support other policies.  The Right desperately needs to remember that where the government intrudes, church recedes.

• Huckabee accepts the Democratic framing: Mike Huckabee seems to have far more complaints with Republicans than with Democrats.  Worse, he embraces liberal or Democratic caricatures to attack Republicans.  Whether it is his attacks on libertarians, business or the Club for Growth, Huckabee almost invariably misrepresents their views, portraying them in the same cartoon terms that Democrats like to use (see the examples quoted earlier in this post).

This is easily as contemptuous, as offensive as anything Kathleen Parker has written about social conservatives.  So, yeah, a columnist express disdain for social conservatives.  Cry me a river.  We libertarians had a social conservative Governor and Presidential candidate call us the "real threat" and "smug", and brazenly misrepresent our views before calling our message un-American.

Social conservatives have to realize that they need the fiscally conservative, socially moderate/tolerant voters if they want to be a part of a winning coalition.  The limited government message won revolutionary victories for Republicans in 1980 and 1994; it is the only viable organizing principle for the current Republican coalition. 

Huckabee may believe libertarians are the "real threat", but his God, Guns and Butter agenda would destroy the Right far more effectively than the libertarian cartoons that exist in Huckabee's head.

[Eric Blair 2084]

Retire the liberal tax raising, open border, algore loving, Jimmy Carter foreign policy pushing, nanny state Huckster Ping

To be added please FReepmail me or OB1KNOB.

[greybull]

Hmm. I think liberty and having been created with certain inalienable rights are blessings of God. Putting the FORCE of government in place of a nation of humble servants can’t bestow the blessings of the creator in either the “social” or the “economic” sense.

[greybull]

Funny. I always thiught that Conservatives with out god were just liberals looking for a tax break or a defence contract.

[Eric Blair 2084]

Both posts sum it up pretty well.

[GOP_Lady]

Hey, Sir Eric.

Your pic reminds me of something...

Did I ever tell you that Mike Tyson was on one of my flights back from Vegas? He’s one tough and mean looking dude.

Hope all is well. :-)

[rrrod]

While clearly Romney wasnt much for conservatives to cheer about the attack on him by the Huckster followers were waaaaaaaaaaaay over the edge. The Huckster and his mindless followers are nothing more than Jim Jones and his herd of sheep.

[mccainvoterinobamaville]

For us to nominate a conservative in 2012 we have to unite behind one guy not be splintered so much so someone in the center to win the nominee.

I supported McCain when he was the nominee because being from Illinois I know how truly dangerous Obama is and knew he was better than Obama but supported Romney in the primaries.

[mccainvoterinobamaville]

I know someone who is quite the conservative as far as the war and fiscal issues but is an atheist. You don’t have to believe in God to be a conservative although I bet about 99 percent of us do.

[mccainvoterinobamaville]

Should aay for us to unite behind 1 person :).

And meant to say McCain was clearly better than Obama.

[rrrod]

At this point Mark Sanford, Jindah or Palin seem best to represent the conservative base. Looooooooooong way to go.

[383rr]

Man, this guy just won’t go away. Sheesh.

[greybull]

ah. tricky ground. what is the “conservative” position on the “the war”. I’ll wager that the vast majority of conservatives who do not believe in god, are in favor of “the war”. (in higher percentages than believing conservatives). After all the concept of Just War is a christian one.

[Eric Blair 2084]

Did he bite your ear off when he found out that there was no in flight meal in coach? :-)

I hope not.

[Eric Blair 2084]

More fun for us.

[Eric Blair 2084]

Jindal.

[figgers3036]

Goodness, I guess I came off as defending Huckabee. I voted for Thompson, by the way, back when I was registered in Michigan, even though I knew he didn’t stand a chance. I don’t trust Huckabee not to tax the snot out of everyone, and I don’t trust him not to try to legislate beyond the scope of Biblical teaching. I don’t think it’s wrong for the government to legislate against sin that’s explicitly explained in the Bible. I do think Huckabee would have tried to legislate much, much beyond that, however, and would ultimately not have made a good president. I would have been happy socially, but upset at pretty much the rest of his policies. But I think that many social issues are much bigger deals than what they’re being made out to be. And that’s why I would have preferred Huckabee above Guiliani or McCain (Because McCain has entertained embyonic stem cell research in the past, but Huckabee has not). But I ended up voting for McCain anyway, because he was the best person on the Texas ballot.

[fortheDeclaration]

Who said George Bush was fiscally conservative? Republicans on the whole really haven’t been fiscally responsible in recent years. That may very well be the biggest reason the GOP is in such trouble now. We have to focus on cutting government spending and paying down the national debt while at the same time improving the economy. Democrats will spend like crazy and get us further in debt. We have a very liberal administration coming that sees big government as the answer to most problems. The changes they make will be expensive and their tax increases on the “rich” will not be enough to pay for them. Voters aren’t going to be all that happy with Democrats as the years go on and we just get further and further in debt. Hopefully in 2010 and 2012 the GOP will be able to convince voters that Republicans can deliver a more fiscally responsible government. If not, there will be no big Republican comeback. It’s not going to be easy though. The Republican Party has lost a lot of credibility.

Exactly!

The GOP has become simply low tax liberalism.

The GOP needs to return to its view of individual freedom which means LESS government, not more.

We had total power for 6 years and the GOP thought they could remain in power by out spending the Democrats.

McCain lost because the GOP base stayed home, not because the Democrats overwhelmed us with new voters.

Bush pushed the Amnesty Bill right before the 2006 elections and it cost us the Congress.

He put up the Bailout right before the 2008 election and it cost us the White House.

[fortheDeclaration]

He should read his Bible more, rather than just thumping it. Christianity doesn't consist of using government power to impose your will on others.

Amen.

Frankly, I would not trust any man who became a minister and then went into politics.

You cannot serve two masters.

[LowCountryJoe]

One things that has annoyed me about the libertarianesque wing of the Republican Party (in some parts, they’re called RINOs)...

Yes, the wing that wants less government are the RINOs. Solid answer. And yet when Huckabee berates organizations like the Club for Growth, talks of CEO greed in ways that would make any Marxist proud, and is a proponent of smoking bans and health food legislation, he represents the cloth that Repulicans should be cut from. ounds about why the GOP is in trouble these days.

[SoConPubbie]

While clearly Romney wasnt much for conservatives to cheer about the attack on him by the Huckster followers were waaaaaaaaaaaay over the edge. The Huckster and his mindless followers are nothing more than Jim Jones and his herd of sheep.

Both the followers of the Huckster and the Mittster were equally guilty of this type of behavior.

This is what you get with Identity-based candidates and their followers.

Both should sit out the next primary season for the good of the GOP since neither will ever win the Presidency.

Neither will sit out the primary because all they care about are themselves.