Huckabee vs. the Establishment

Larison makes a good point:

Were [Huckabee] somehow nominated and elected, this would not ultimately herald the movement of the GOP in a more populist direction, but would set the stage for internecine GOP warfare as conservatives would turn against him quickly and seek to oust him as progressives tried to do with Carter. The Carter parallels are already overused, I know, but they seem eerily appropriate.

A case in point: This morning's Lisa Schiffren post on Huckabee, which might as well have been titled "Go Back to Dogpatch, You Stupid Hillbilly!"

It's interesting, in this vein, to compare Huckabee's '08 insurgency with McCain's '00 outsider campaign for the GOP nomination. There are parallels: Both men made enemies of the supply-side wing of the party, and both found one of their strongest constituencies in the liberal media (though in Huck's case, the honeymoon may be coming to an end). And then there are differences: McCain's anti-establishment run had a large cheering section among the right-wing pundit class, whereas Huckabee's emphatically does not; McCain found votes among old-fashioned fiscal conservatives, moderates and independents while making an enemy of the Christian Right, whereas Huckabee's base is the Christian Right; and McCain was facing an establishment unified around a single candidate, whereas Huckabee's attempting an insurgency in a fractured party. Essentially, the McCain strategy was to leverage an ad hoc coalition of moderates and neoconservatives to take down the candidate favored by all the party's interest groups; whereas Huckabee is trying to exploit divisions between the party's interest groups, and ride one of those groups - the social conservatives - to victory.

Overall, I would say that McCain circa 2000 was a stronger (and better prepared) insurgent candidate in a host of ways than Huckabee circa 2008 - but Huckabee is running through a broken field, which makes a big difference.

Comments

whereas Huckabee is trying to exploit divisions between the party's interest groups, and ride one of those groups - the social conservatives - to victory.

This is going to be so interesting. What happens if the social conservatives get broken? Using the Red analytic style found in prescriptions of how to negotiate with foreign powers, I think it means that the social conservatives lose relative power and end up in a significantly worse position. Which suggests--again, following on analysis applied to the anti-American forces in Iraq--that they'll fight harder now because they know they may well be heading towards an important defeat that will reset relative positions.

I'm curious as to what a Huckabee loss to institutional Republican interests means for Sam's Club Republicanism. But mostly I'm curious to see if social conservatives will actually join the fight.

Posted by SomeCallMeTim | December 13, 2007 10:46 AM

SCMT,

But mostly I'm curious to see if social conservatives will actually join the fight.

And, if they do, then Huckabee's insurgency will be a net plus for Sam's Club Republicanism, right? Because Huckabee hits all the right populist notes that could lead to actual Sam's Club policies being tried.

This is the part of the Huckabee run that interests me. Much more so than the Christian Leader dogwhistle politics. Because Huckabee does that stuff while at the same time making a point to challenge the Wall Street interests in the party. This would seem to be a man who would be open to the pragmatism of the Sam's Club Republican policies and able to convince the social conservatives that fighting for those policies is the moral thing to do.

Or, in other words, I think this strong Huckabee insurgency (which is being beaten back by the forces of the institutional republicans and their media lapdogs) goads the social conservatives into sitting this one out in a warfare type mode. I mean, what are they gonna do, vote for a cross-dressing, baby killer, or a Mormon?

Surely after these folks are forced to make that choice, they will see that the Republican Party does not represent their interests.

Posted by keatssycamore | December 13, 2007 12:16 PM

Does McCain have any kind of a shot left this year?

Posted by Mark E. | December 13, 2007 1:34 PM

their strongest constituencies in the liberal media

Yep, the liberal media. You can tell, because liberals are known for their Biblical literalism and support for any proposed US military action.

Seriously, can we retire that cliche yet? The conventional wisdom-loving media is sometimes hostile to conservatives, and sometimes hostile to liberals. It sure as heck isn't liberal.

Posted by anonymous | December 13, 2007 1:37 PM

Anonymous beat me to it...but between this type of tired cliche and the general "poseur alert" style of this blog, I think my experiment in reading Ross has come to an end.

Posted by tiparillo | December 13, 2007 2:20 PM

You also have to admit Lisa Schiffren is bringing up a good point: if ol' Huck was so easily conned into letting a rapist out because of hysteria from the anti-Clinton crowd and the rapist's supposed religious conversion and contrition (whereupon said rapist promptly manages to rape and murder two other women)--why in the heck do you want this guy in charge of negotiating with anyone? Is Huckabee going to totally shut off his brain anytime someone howls "Ah belieeeve in Jeezus!"

The bible-thumpers may think belief in Christianity automatically insulates you from all judgement, but I hope a majority of Americans are more worried about competence.

Posted by grumpy realist | December 13, 2007 5:26 PM

Liberal media ? Did Ross say that with a straight face? I think he did.

Just when you think you've found a conservative whose intellect might rise a bit higher than Limbaugh's...man, I give up!

Posted by Naveen | December 13, 2007 6:37 PM

grumpy,

Actually, Schiffren - like every other conservative who has mentioned the Dumond release - doesn't mention the creepy, crazy Clinton-hating aspect of the case. They want to pretend that part doesn't exist. I don't know if it's because they think a distant relative of Clinton does, in fact, deserve to be raped. Or if it just makes them feel guilty and dirty about the whole Arkansas Project stuff (as they should). But they won't cop to it.

Still, Schiffren's screed is pretty shrill. If a non-conservative had written it, of course, they'd be tarred as anti-Christian and the publication would be boycotted.

Posted by Woody Bombay | December 13, 2007 6:48 PM

If the Republicans pass on Huckabee, they will repeat the mistakes of the GOP voters of 2000, in which they nominated someone - a decent man but not the best candidate - who America was completely lukewarm to. The result was an election in which the GOP candidate could have easily lost. On the other hand, John McCain would have wiped Al Gore off the Electoral Map. The reason the 2000 election was so close was because America disliked both of the candidates.

Huckabee is the best GOP candidate and not only does the Republican establishment dislike him but so do the Democrats. Both sides are afraid of him. To the Democrats, he represents the religious right - but a flavor of the religious right that most people have trouble hating. He actually cares about the poor. He actually cares about health care and the environment. How do you apply the standard arguments to bash the right-wingers against a hybrid like him? And the Republicans fear him because he doesn't represent the big pocket, race-bashing, southern strategy-loving, stereotypes of many Republican candidates. He has no money and is therefore not (yet) in anyone's pocket. How do you control someone whom you didn't create? So, the GOP tries to nix him, using some conservative thought leaders to push that anti-Huckabee fear-mongering down to the largely persuadable masses while the Democrats try to game plan against someone who doesn't play the standard game of politics.

But, the people are behind him. People believe in him and are willing to stand up to the establishment. The profile of the type of supporter helping Huckabee is also different - he also will attract black and hispanic voters. If the GOP pushes him away, they will almost certainly revisit the painful days of November, 2006, in which they got swept out of power.

Posted by TVV | December 13, 2007 8:40 PM

Seriously, can we retire that cliche yet? The conventional wisdom-loving media is sometimes hostile to conservatives, and sometimes hostile to liberals. It sure as heck isn't liberal.

There have been academic studies of the worldview of journalists and the differences between the national press corps, military officers, business executives, senior civil servants, & c conducted and published for over twenty-five years now, content analyses of news broadcasts conducted and published for nearly that long, and sociometric studies of public perception which point to the same conclusion: that people who trade in words and images for a living have a different set of convictions than those who trade in widgets (i.e. thay are 'liberal') and that affects their understanding of what is and is not news. You ought not retire the 'cliche' because it happens to be true.

Posted by Art Deco | December 13, 2007 8:57 PM

Anonymous beat me to it...but between this type of tired cliche and the general "poseur alert" style of this blog, I think my experiment in reading Ross has come to an end.

Ciao

Posted by Art Deco | December 13, 2007 8:58 PM

Mark my words, Schiffren's cringing little tantrum is just one of many we'll be seeing from NRO's fawning bitch trifecta (Kathyrn, Kate, and Lisa) whenever some dissenter on the Right snipes at Dreamboat Romney. If I had a lick of drawing ability, I'd do one of those ribald Hustler cartoons with the three NRO maids tearing at Romney's temple garments while Jonah Goldberg, John Derbyshire, and Ramesh Ponnuru look on with barely veiled nausea.

I sometimes wonder if those three men--who are undoubtedly the most talented writers working at NR--ask themselves what a silly world it is that they have to work for a hack editor like Kathryn Jean Lopez. Derbyshire in particular seems to have checked out lately--his posts are still fun to read, but they have almost nothing to do with Republicanism or even conservatism in general. I'm surprised he's still working there; maybe he's waiting on a gig with the New Criterion. That magazine is much more his style.

Posted by Immoralist | December 13, 2007 10:29 PM

Mr./Ms. Deco, thanks for offering zero support for your assertions, and grounding them entirely on how reporters supposedly respond to surveys, rather than on what they actually do.

For a more reality-based perspective, please check out these two sites:

http://www.dailyhowler.com/

http://mediamatters.org/

Or, please watch this documentary, which shows the media bias towards ill-advised invasions of faraway countries:
http://www.pbs.org/moyers/journal/btw/watch.html

As I said above, I am perfectly willing to say that there are some ways in which the media is unfriendly to conservatives.

But it is false to say that the media is liberal.

Posted by anonymous | December 13, 2007 10:32 PM

Naveen writes: "Liberal media ? Did Ross say that with a straight face? I think he did.

Just when you think you've found a conservative whose intellect might rise a bit higher than Limbaugh's...man, I give up!"

Ross is brighter than Limbaugh, but he can't help himself. He grew up swimming in the sewer of modern Repiglican "thought," and he's just started shaving recently, for St. Reagan's sake! Give him some time to see just how degenerate his party gods are.

The best critic of the "liberal media" nonsense right now is Glenn Greenwald at salon.com. Joe Klein must scream out curses at Greenwald in his deservedly troubled sleep.

Posted by MoeLarryAndJesus | December 13, 2007 11:59 PM

As for Art Deco, all you have to know about where he's coming from is that he has a "George Allen '08" sign in his front yard, framed by two well-tanned lawn jockeys.

Posted by MoeLarryAndJesus | December 14, 2007 12:02 AM

How on Earth does being a big-government rube make Huckabee's fundamentalism MORE attractive? It makes it LESS attractive.

How do you get more odious in American politics than to take John Edwards' pseudopopulist William Jennings Bryan act and stuff it into Pat Robertson's smarmy fundamentalist evil? Huckabee is the worst of all worlds, and if the broken field gives him the nomination than the Republican party deserves the beat-down it gets as a result. But hey, maybe once the village has burned we'll have a chance to save it later.

Posted by Brian | December 14, 2007 3:36 PM

It's more attractive because of the whole Sam's Club Republicanism thing. Presumably the SocCons of the GOP are tired that it's the corporations who are getting all of the handouts. They're beginning to turn lefty in terms of economics. Lefty economics would presume big government.

Perhaps it'll really boil down to libertarians vs. communitarians.

Posted by Quietus | December 14, 2007 3:52 PM

Mr./Ms. Deco, thanks for offering zero support for your assertions, and grounding them entirely on how reporters supposedly respond to surveys, rather than on what they actually do.

I will refer you to American Elites by Robert Lerner, Althea K. Nagai, and Stanley Rothman, published in 1996. The book summarizes research done by Dr. Rothman, among others, on how journalists compare with other occupational groups with regard to a number of variables. Included therein should be references to their research published in academic journals.

As for "what they actually do", Robert Lichter and the Center for Media and Public Affairs have been publishing content analyses of news broadcasts for two decades. Dr. Lichter, who is a professor of communications at George Mason University and the author of more than a dozen books on the treatment of various subjects by mass media, is simply not to be compared with the likes of the rather dodgy scandalmonger (David Brock) who founded Media Matters.

Suggesting a broadcast by Bill Moyers on Public Television to instruct one of the political neutrality of the mass media would ordinarily be considered rather arch.

Posted by Art Deco | December 14, 2007 5:03 PM

As I said above, twice, there are ways in which the media is unfriendly to conservatives. However, the evidence is ample (consider the runup to the Iraq invasion; consider the recent column on FISA by Joe Klein (a supposed left of center columnist!) in Time) that it is in other ways unfriendly to liberals.

But don't trouble your pretty little head with confusing facts; just tell yourself that the sources of contrary data are politically incorrect, and therefore their points need not be engaged.

And hey, the money for the Center for Media and Public Affairs came from far-right figures like Pat Buchanan and Pat Robertson. Therefore everything they say is false! So I take it back-- the media is in no way unfriendly to conservatives.

Posted by anonymous | December 14, 2007 11:35 PM

I think a better comparison is Mike Huckabee = Harriet Miers.

She is a good person, just not SCOTUS material.

Huckabee is a good person, just not POTUS material

Posted by Big Jay | December 14, 2007 11:44 PM

Rod Dreher's Dec 19 article picks up the Huck vs. Establishment topic from Ross Douthat.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2007/12/mike_huckabees_legacy.html

As a social conservative who has long thought GOP promises to Christian conservatives have only been "a carrot on a string", I think the Dreher piece speaks volumes.

Posted by Chris in Silicon Valley | December 20, 2007 3:35 AM

Gifts that do a world of good!
Christmas Gifts - Postcards
We send personalized cards for you!

Posted by icolleysore | December 22, 2007 2:51 AM