Who Owns the GOP?

David Brooks and Dean Barnett both tackle Huckabee's gradual rise today, and both see a lot of promise: Brooks writes that whereas "each of the top-tier candidates makes certain parts of the party uncomfortable ... Huckabee is the one candidate acceptable to all factions," while Barnett acknowledges that the Huck's "taxing and spending in Arkansas may not be every conservative's ideal," but suggests that he "probably has fewer policy skeletons in his closet than anyone else in the field."

I dunno - as Matt says, taxing and spending are a pretty big deal in the GOP, and it's clear that Huckabee wouldn't be acceptable to this particular faction, at the very least. Throw in his wetness on immigration and his various rhetorical forays toward a "conservatism of the heart" on trade and inequality and so forth, and you have a candidate with as many deviations from GOP orthodoxy as John McCain and Fred Thompson, certainly, if not Giuliani and Romney (both of whom have enough skeletons to fill the whole house).

Which is why the current Republican race is so interesting - it's a laboratory, in a sense, for determining which interest groups really have clout in the GOP primaries, and which issues really excite the faithful. If Rudy Giuliani wins the nomination, it will tell us a lot about the real influence (or lack thereof) of folks like James Dobson; if John McCain gets the nod, we'll know that immigration and (to a lesser extent) campaign-finance reform are more important to activists than to actual voters; if Huckabee becomes a significent spoiler (or, though it's much more unlikely, an actual contender) then we'll know the Club for Growth doesn't have quite as much clout as most people, left and right, assume to be the case. And if Fred Thompson or Mitt Romney wins, it will reinforce the notion that all of the various issues and interest groups jostling in the GOP tent really are a package deal, and that the best way to take the nomination, now and forever, is to make sure you've checked all your boxes, even if it means flip-flopping like crazy.

Comments

Gawd, do I agree with this. Any idea on how much of the Giuliani/Romney success represents the power of business interest Republicans?

Posted by SomeCallMeTim | October 19, 2007 6:59 PM

Throw in his wetness on immigration and his various rhetorical forays toward a "conservatism of the heart" on trade and inequality and so forth, and you have a candidate with as many deviations from GOP orthodoxy as John McCain and Fred Thompson...

Ross: I don't think you're correct to cite "wetness on immigration" as evidence of a departure from GOP orthodoxy. GOP orthodoxy on the issue of immigration -- at least in terms of how the modern party's patriarch -- Ronald Reagan -- saw it, is quite sensibly all about generosity, inclusion, assimilation, and going after new constituencies. It's an orthodoxy likewise embraced by the current president. The current dominant pandering, er, thinking on the issue in GOP circles -- characterized by niggardliness, exclusion, xenophobia and political short sightedness -- is not GOP orthodoxy but rather heresy.

Posted by Jasper | October 20, 2007 2:28 PM

Well, believe it or not, many Republicans believe that laws passed by the democratically elected Congress, and signed by the President, should be obeyed and enforced.

If we can disregard immigration laws on the grounds that diversity makes us feel good, then we can disregard any law on any grounds.

Posted by JT | October 20, 2007 10:44 PM

Huckabee impresses me more than any other candidate. I read his stance on issues at (ontheissues.org). News media has ignored Huckabee,Brownback,Paul,and Tancredo. Glenn Beck did a very good Huckabee interview last week.
But i am sure there is more to learn about Huckabee, if a democrat is elected, goodbye America.

Posted by CIE | October 21, 2007 12:14 AM

Huckabee is a neocon through and through. Just look at the "big three": interventionism, trade, and immigration. Huckabee is a hyperinterventionist, wanting to continue neocon wars in Middle East, and has recently been utilizing pseudoChristian rhetoric about "human rights" in Darfur. Regarding free trade, despite his rhetoric, he supports the continuation of our suicidal trade agreements, which are destroying our economy and undermining our sovereignty. And on immigration, he supports the third-world invasion of the U.S., which squarely puts him in the treason camp. No thanks.

Posted by Bede | October 22, 2007 9:07 AM

Bede, please do not use words of which you do not know the meaning. I am no fan of Huckabee, but he could not be farther from a "neoconservative."

"Neocon" does not mean "people I dislike and disagree with."

Posted by Steven | October 23, 2007 12:27 AM

"Wetness on immigration" is a new phrase to me. Is it common lingo among persons who discuss Republican immgration policies? I could understand if you used "softness," although I dislike the use of soft vs. hard in this context. But "wetness" sounds like an allusion to a once-popular racial slur. Finding another word would be preferable, because this sounds like a coded appeal to not-nice things. If you really have no clue what I'm talking about, I'll explain, but it shouldn't be hard to figure out.

Posted by Ben | October 23, 2007 2:09 AM