« Huckabee's Blood Libel? | Main | Like A Stuck Pig »

Huckabee's Heresies

20 Dec 2007 12:27 pm

The following passage from George Will's anti-Huckabee broadside is less outrageous than his "blood libel" riff, but not all that much more persuasive:

Huckabee's campaign actually is what Rudy Giuliani's candidacy is misdescribed as being -- a comprehensive apostasy against core Republican beliefs. Giuliani departs from recent Republican stances regarding two issues -- abortion and the recognition by the law of same-sex couples.

Huckabee's radical candidacy broadly repudiates core Republican policies such as free trade, low taxes, the essential legitimacy of America's corporate entities and the market system allocating wealth and opportunity.

If Will can point me to examples of Huckabee-the-candidate actually repudiating any of these "core Republican policies," I'd be grateful. As governor of Arkansas, Huckabee raised taxes: This is true. As a candidate for President, however, he has campaigned as a tax cutter, taking Grover Norquist's gimmicky "no new taxes" pledge (which Rudy hasn't, incidentally) and proposing a tax reform that, while deeply foolish, is perfectly consonant with low-tax orthodoxy. His "repudiation" of free trade, so far as I can tell, consists of vague calls for the U.S. to get tougher in trade negotiations and a misguided use of the lefty term-of-art "fair trade". He isn't on the record opposing any free trade deals; in my interview with him, he mentioned the passage of NAFTA as one of Bill Clinton's biggest accomplishments; and even the anti-Huckabee Club for Growth has described his gubernatorial record on trade as "limited, but positive."

As for whether Huckabee has questioned the "essential legitimacy of America's corporate entities" - well, presumably this is the sort of thing Will has in mind:

I can see why Will wouldn't much care for this sort of rhetoric, but note that Huckabee explicitly says, while criticizing outsourcing and skyrocketing CEO pay, that "I'm not expecting government to fix it"; rather, he seems to be making the moral point that America's corporate entities should recognize obligations to their employees and communities as well as to their shareholders and bottom lines. This strikes me as a perfectly reasonable way for conservative politicians to address the thorny issue of corporate excess - by scolding, rather than regulating. Will obviously disagrees, which is fair enough. But to suggest that criticizing specific instances of corporate behavior, while disavowing regulation of corporate conduct, is the same as questioning the legitimacy of America's corporations - or the "market system" as a whole - is just ridiculous, and unworthy of a writer of Will's intelligence.

I have to say, it would be a lot easier for my substantial Huckaskepticism to harden into outright opposition to his candidacy if his critics didn't seem quite so bent on turning their anti-Huckabee sentiments into an ideological witch hunt.

Comments (37)

Is "fair trade" really a "lefty term of art"? I grew up in the southern textile industry--never a lefty redoubt--and heard it all the time.

The Right's Dr. Frankensteins are pretty gosh-darned scared of the monster they've created!

There was a time when George Will was an ardent social conservative - not just thirty years ago, but ten years ago. I remember his eloquent columns linking the girl who drowned her baby in a toilet at the prom and the abortion culture. Yet within the last five years or so, he has taken jabs at social conservatives repeatedly. What happened?

I think this one's pretty clear; Will can't separate Huckabee's record as governor from his Presidential candidacy. And his record as governor shows that ... he believes government should actually do things, like insure children and provide nurses at schools and raise taxes rather than shut down nursing homes and so forth.

The rest of the second paragraph, though, is a lot of hooey.

Ross,
this is a good analysis of Will's writing.

He and Novak are really starting to make some intellectual stretches in their efforts to extinguish enthusiasm for Huckabee.

I'm far more conservative than Ross and have contributed to Dr. Ron Paul's presidential campaign, much to Ross' consternation.

ridiculous, and unworthy of a writer of Will's intelligence.

You've just described nearly everything George Will has ever written that does not revolve around the subject of baseball.

His criticism of Huckabee is exactly as intellectually dishonest as his criticisms of liberal politicians. When it's your ox being gored, you consider it to be unworthy of George Will. I'd say that George Will is a ridiculous man whose vocabulary bats for a higher average than his intellect or integrity, and he is unworthy of your respect.

It's weirder than that. Will got off the Bush train because of the Iraq fiasco, which he attributes to faith-based policymaking and hence, implicitly, is the fault of the religious conservatives. But has he noticed who's advising Rudy on foreign policy? That's the question someone needs to be asking.

James Kabala wonders: "There was a time when George Will was an ardent social conservative - not just thirty years ago, but ten years ago. I remember his eloquent columns linking the girl who drowned her baby in a toilet at the prom and the abortion culture. Yet within the last five years or so, he has taken jabs at social conservatives repeatedly. What happened?"

I'm guessing Will has moderated his tone because he no longer wants to be associated with today's "social conservatives," who are a pack of homo-hating torture-loving creationist-appeasing wackaloons. I don't think he's actually changed - I think the right-wing has moved so far right that he no longer recognizes or respects it.

Conservatism would be better today if Barry Goldwater had actually given the revolting Jerry Falwell his much-deserved kick in the ass.

Will got off the Bush train because of the Iraq fiasco, which he attributes to faith-based policymaking and hence, implicitly, is the fault of the religious conservatives. But has he noticed who's advising Rudy on foreign policy?

Well, you answered your own question, right?

Will blames the Iraq War on social conservatives, when it was designed by neocons and elite conservative policy hands. The social conservatives were foolish enough to buy it, but they certainly weren't the cause. Will is wrong. So he doesn't recognize the (neo)conservative elites who designed the war have attached themselves to Giuliani, becuase he doesn't blame them for the war.

I'm really enjoying watching the Republican party elite and their media hands in the conservative blogosphere mock and marginalize their largest voting bloc.

I have to say, it would be a lot easier for my substantial Huckaskepticism to harden into outright opposition to his candidacy if his critics didn't seem quite so bent on turning their anti-Huckabee sentiments into an ideological witch hunt.

Ross: the guy believes the earth is 6,837 years old. He believes that he and you and I do not share a common ancestry with chimpanzees. That degree of detachment from reality should disqualify him from consideration by any thoughtful person, no matter what George Will says.

"If Will can point me to examples of Huckabee-the-candidate actually repudiating any of these "core Republican policies,"

A core Republican principle has been for limited government. To that end, Reagan sought to abolish the Department of Education. Huckabee promotes EXPANDING the role of the federal goverment to include "Weapons of Mass Instruction" music and art courtesty of the federal government. He also supports teacher testing and opposes school vouchers unless they go to other public schools. He also made it harder to homeschool in Arkansas by imposing a 14-day waiting period before a parent can pull their child out of a government school. A requirement not necessary if they go to a private or parochial school.

As evangelical homeschoolers are finding out about his liberal stand in education (he got the endorsement of the NEA along with Hillary) they are moving along to other candidates. I've blogged all of this and am receiving notes and comments from people who are realizing Huckabee is not what he claims to be.

http://www.spunkyhomeschool.blogspot.com/

A core Republican principle has been for limited government. To that end, Reagan sought to abolish the Department of Education. Huckabee promotes EXPANDING the role of the federal goverment to include "Weapons of Mass Instruction" music and art courtesty of the federal government.

So, just to be clear, it is your claim that George W. Bush - responsible for No Child Left Behind's massive increase in the federal role in education - is not a true conservative?

And if so, it does seem that you are defining conservatism based on a phantasmatic projection of the political world, rather than the real one.

If you're simply arguing that supporting home-schooling is a "core Republican policy", then you're badly wrong.

Spunky spurts: "A core Republican principle has been for limited government."

No, the true core principle has been CLAIMING they're for limited government while expanding the power and scope of the executive branch. This was true of Nixon, it was true of Reagan, and it is most definitely true of Dumbya Bush.

Yet all three of these men were/are enormously popular among Republicans (and the current crop of Repiglicans). Why is that? Obviously this is a group of people which is either exceptionally stupid or is lying about its principles, or both.

Will has always been a "Mammon First" conservative. I have increasingly lost respect for him over the years as he has become a creature of the beltway.

What’s most disturbing is that his one consistent foray into social issues is on affirmative action. He can grandstand on this issue with the best of them....but if the topic turns to the slide of sexual morality, he's AWOL.

Fitz writes: "if the topic turns to the slide of sexual morality, he's AWOL. "

Maybe he's decided to sit back and let your preferred spokesmen on that issue own it, Fitz. You know, the extremely credible, scandal`free folks who hold positions of power in the Catholic Church.

Yeah, that must be it.

I am getting very sick of economic conservatives bashing on Huckabee for raising taxes. Will may be right that "keeping taxes low" may be a conservative principle, but "always cut taxes and never raise them" isn't a PRINCIPLE at all. It's just a predilection. Obviously, if you have a Ron Paul-style minimalist state, and taxes are currently 1 percent, and the minimalist state requires an increase to 1 1/2 percent, you raise taxes. (I am not endorsing such a state, just positing it to make my point.) Yet many Republicans contend that there's a "principle" that says you don't. Even if you have a budget deficit. Even if you cause the government to be indebted to foreign interests. Even if you increase the government's interest costs and crowd out investment and mortgage our future.

That is not a "principle". That's just a group of people who want to pretend that there is never a trade-off between levels of taxation and levels of spending, because they want to tell the public that they will cut their taxes but they dont want to lose votes by cutting any popular programs.

Now, what does this have to do with Huckabee? Well, does George Will know the CIRCUMSTANCES under which he raised taxes in Arkansas? Has he done a detailed analysis of the budget and the political situation and determined that Huckabee could have gotten a program through the legislature that would have not contained a tax increase and would have not cut any necessary government programs? Have any of the critics of Huckabee raising taxes done this? I think I know the answer to this question.

Will is criticizing something he has no understanding of. And he is pretending that there can never be a situation where you need to raise taxes.

Dilan-

As with Noah's comments above, I think you're clearly correct, but not following the logic far enough.

The problem with Huckabee isn't his policy record. If Will actually cared, he could have looked it up. The problem is that Huckabee is one of them. His fealty to the conservative elite is uncertain, and his fealty to his evangelical base is unshakeable.

Now, the fact is that Huckabee's policies are wildly to the right on economic issues even while his rhetoric tends in the other direction. But even so, he's going to be bashed by the conservative elite on whatever grounds they can find.

Dilan.

I'm afraid it is a "principle".
That principles name is Grover Norquist, and Americans for Tax Reform.

Sadly

DivGuy writes: "The problem with Huckabee isn't his policy record. If Will actually cared, he could have looked it up. The problem is that Huckabee is one of them. His fealty to the conservative elite is uncertain, and his fealty to his evangelical base is unshakeable.

Now, the fact is that Huckabee's policies are wildly to the right on economic issues even while his rhetoric tends in the other direction. But even so, he's going to be bashed by the conservative elite on whatever grounds they can find. "

But not because he's a fundie. There are PLENTY of those in the GOP. They're bashing him because they're 95% sure that he'll get (pardon the expression) crucified in the general election, and that strikes them as the worst kind of disaster, because it will cost them the one prize they nw have - the Supreme Court. Give Hillary or Obama or Edwards 2-3 picks for the Court and the social wingnuts will never see Roe overturned - and the wealth-up redistributionists will lose their solid all-business, all the time Court block. The thought makes them throw up in their mouths.

I'm guessing Will has moderated his tone because he no longer wants to be associated with today's "social conservatives," who are a pack of homo-hating torture-loving creationist-appeasing wackaloons.

Um ... no.

There is no objective standard, supportable by contemporary and contemporaneous evidence, of "homo-hate," "torture-love" or "creationist-appeasement" by which today's social conservatives are "worse" than those of 10 or 30 years ago. None.

What has changed, if anything, is the broader social environment (for better or worse) and liberal standards of political correctness/acceptability/ritual cleanliness that they judge (and demonize) by. Will had some things to say about homosexuals 10 and 30 years ago that would definitely qualify as "hate" by the plastic-bubble-sealed standards of today's homosexuals.

Victor Morton makes excuses for his homo-hating, torture-loving, creationist-appeasing pals: "There is no objective standard, supportable by contemporary and contemporaneous evidence, of "homo-hate," "torture-love" or "creationist-appeasement" by which today's social conservatives are "worse" than those of 10 or 30 years ago. None.

What has changed, if anything, is the broader social environment (for better or worse) and liberal standards of political correctness/acceptability/ritual cleanliness that they judge (and demonize) by. Will had some things to say about homosexuals 10 and 30 years ago that would definitely qualify as "hate" by the plastic-bubble-sealed standards of today's homosexuals."

10-30 years ago torture wasn't the policy of the US government. Today it is, thanks to the scumbags social conservatives and their slimy neocon pals installed in the White House.

Creationists have flourished under the reign of said scumbags, too - emboldened enough to try, over and over again, to install their ignorant "intelligent design" nonsense into public school curricula.

As for homo-hating, you may be right. Wingnuts hated homosexuals 10-30 years ago and they still hate them now. I accept that part of your correction, chuckles.

Victor Morton makes excuses for his homo-hating, torture-loving, creationist-appeasing pals:

...

Really no point reading further.

Victor Morton quotes and runs: "Victor Morton makes excuses for his homo-hating, torture-loving, creationist-appeasing pals:

...

Really no point reading further."

Or having the intestinal fortitude to respond to valid points. I suggest that only the worst sort of moron would say that creationists and torture-lovers haven't experienced a bonanza of support during the Bushpig years. Victor can't admit that, of course, because he's been a part of the stupidity. Hell, he probably can't wait for the surviving torture videos to surface so he can screen them in his living room with a moist towel by his side.

Just check out his website and tell me why I'm wrong.

I've just gotten to the point where I don't care to deal with people who can't make points without a modicum of civility.

I'll repond to you when you grow up some.

Victor Morton sniffs: "I've just gotten to the point where I don't care to deal with people who can't make points without a modicum of civility."

Oh, yeah... this from a guy whose first comment to me contained this sparkling bit of "civility": "plastic-bubble-sealed standards of today's homosexuals."

If I were homosexual I might think that was uncivil - I still do, even though I'm not. But Victor Morton, like almost every conservative these days, demands to be treated civilly despite a near-constant refusal to return the favor. I don't play that way anymore. Where conservatives are concerned, I can only treat them as their idol Cheney does and say, "Go f**k yourselves."

And the torture-loving creationist-appeasing cretins you rode in on.

I realized a couple of years ago that I had lost any interest in reading Will's columns. So I stopped. I guess if he ever says anything interesting again I'll miss it. It's a risk I'm willing to take.

Who was it within the last few weeks who was recommending a sort of term limit for pundits? Sounds like a great idea. Will has been coasting for quite a long time.

I generally describe my politics as Conservative For Lack Of A Better Word. I really don't give a damn whether Huckabee commits "apostasy against core Republican beliefs," some of which are conservative and some not. Do Will and others understand that they're practically begging people like me to desert the party?

Maclin Horton wonders: "Do Will and others understand that they're practically begging people like me to desert the party?"

Is there some reason why they should care, and adjust their opinions to avoid that possibility?

I would hope we would ask columnists to express their actual opinions above all, and not serve as some sort of party asslickers. Fox News fills that role well enough.

"So, just to be clear, it is your claim that George W. Bush - responsible for No Child Left Behind's massive increase in the federal role in education - is not a true conservative?"

My answer had nothing to do with the conservative or lack there of in our current President, but simply to provide an example where Huckabee has repudiated a core conservative principle. But in that regard, Bush has repudiated a core conservative principle in education as well.

MoeLarryandJesus, point well taken, perhpas it would have been better to say "core conservative princples" because as you have indeeed pointed out, many Republicans do not necessarily promote limited government.

Spunky replies: "MoeLarryandJesus, point well taken, perhpas it would have been better to say "core conservative princples" because as you have indeeed pointed out, many Republicans do not necessarily promote limited government."

Once they get into office, I think Mordecai Brown could count those who do on the fingers of his pitching hand, with fingers to spare.

They pay lip service to that notion, but it's a humongous scam.

Re. James Kabala's question, "There was a time...What happened?"

I think what has happened is that we are seeing the GOP Establishment's true colors. The moral issues have just been hung out like a carrot on a string for 2 decades now. I fear what they really care about is preservation of "free trade" (i.e., outsourcing and skyrocketing CEO pay).

Read Lisa Schriffen's article and then read Rod Dreher's.

http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=MmM1ZmZhNzgyYzBiN2U5OWM4ZGJhODI3YjZjMTVmZWQ=

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

---Chris

What a vapid discussion this thread is. I've never seen so much self induced brainwashing. Note to self: If you keep saying it, it doesn't make it true...

Let's discuss the issues with some civility and statesmanship, or a least support a candidate that can do so without the use of snide comments or smarmy one-liners.

We've got to do our own thinking, people. We are vetting the next Commander in Chief. Don't rely on what George Will says, or even what your candidate of choice says about himself or about others in those "infotainment" commercials we sometimes call campaign ads.

It would be helpful if all the candidates would step up and demonstrate that they've actually thought deeply about the issues and challenges we face then clearly share with us their thinking and vision or plan for America. Because they all haven't (or haven't had time to), it is up to US to ferret this out and consider the qualifications of the candidate with regards to their ability to face these challenges.

As we do our own research, the candidate's past records (unfortunately for some) are not only fair game, they are a crucial consideration. It is the skills (or lack thereof) developed over years of qualified service in the public/private sector that will allow the candidate to make real and meaningful change or fail in the attempt.

So consider everything, keep an open mind, and don't let this primary season fractionalism ultimately dissuade you from supporting the eventual nominee even if it isn't your favorite. But please base your primary support on the issues and qualifications of the candidate, not on myopic, irrational, emotional fanaticism. We have the Football Playoffs for that kind of populist, mindless drivel.

Frozone concludes a pregame pep talk with: "So consider everything, keep an open mind, and don't let this primary season fractionalism ultimately dissuade you from supporting the eventual nominee even if it isn't your favorite."

Why the hell not? Feeling compelled to support the nominee of one party or another, even if he or she is a rancid bucket of cattle snot, seems like the epitome of "irrational, emotional fanaticism." It's why Dumbya Bush still has his 30%.

If Huckabee gets the nomination after mounting a campaign that hangs it hat on, hey I am your same religon, forget the fact that I don't have any substance and/or vision for the country and that when you look at my record it's swiss cheese and I have never accomplised a damn thing...

Romney has gone out of his way to include members of all faiths, especially Born agains and Non dem... And basically said, I know we are not the same on theology, but we have the same values. Let's work together.

Chew on this, the Southwest/Mountain West is to Baptists as the South. Huckabee will not win , Arizona, Utah, Nevada, Idaho, New Mexico, Colorado and Wyoming... I am not saying that LDS people make all the population there, but a huge chunk.. And I will personally lead a capaign against Huckabee...

NOT because he is a different faith then me, because I respect everyone faith but because you has tried as gracefully as possible to attack Romney's religon. All the while Romney has tried to unite.

Scott from AZ warns: "I will personally lead a capaign against Huckabee..."

I'll just bet that threat makes Huck's jowls quiver.

Huckabee's radical candidacy broadly repudiates core Republican policies such as free trade, low taxes, the essential legitimacy of America's corporate entities and the market system allocating wealth and opportunity.

Well, I think the corporations do a plenty good job casting aspersions on their legitimacy without any help from Huck. Look at the latest debt blowup. These masters of the free market, who bitterly oppose any effort to tax their earnings, expect and even demand a bailout. I'm tired of the Welfare queens of Wall Street that champion "creative destruction" for the rest of us and expect to be saved from peils of their own making by Uncle Sam.

Frozone: "So consider everything, keep an open mind, and don't let this primary season fractionalism ultimately dissuade you from supporting the eventual nominee even if it isn't your favorite."

Chris: If I don't like the GOP nominee, I may just vote independent or Libertarian. Is that what you meant? Would that be vapid?

PS - The original headline topic was "Huckabee's Heresies", and I still think the Dreher article speaks volumes on this. Here it is again.

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