The Limits of Huckabee

Rich Lowry's column is tough on him but largely fair, I think. Despite his populist (or pseudo-populist, as Rod Dreher puts it) flourishes, Huckabee has conspicuously failed to break out of his evangelical base, and while I think Rich slightly underestimates the extent to which the media coverage (David Brooks and E.J. Dionne's favorable assessments aside) has helped ensure his marginalization - he got no bounce from Iowa in part because all the press wanted to talk about immediately afterward was McCain - the bulk of the responsibility has to rest with Huck himself, who hasn't found a graceful way to transition away from just being the candidate of evangelical identity-politics. His current wave of unsavory South Carolinian pandering - on illegal immigration, on the Confederate flag - looks like an increasingly-desperate attempt to appeal to a broader Joe-Sixpack constituency, but even if it works in the short term (and it probably won't) it's likely going to ensure his marginalization in the long run, by depriving him of the favorable media coverage that was part of his initial success.

If he does pull out South Carolina, maybe he'll get one last chance to hit the re-set button. But I think it's too late: the narrative of his campaign has been established, in the minds of voters and the press, and once set a narrative is hard to change.

Comments

The whole desire to be Reverend-in-Chief doesn't play well with a lot of republicans, many of whom like to invoke God here and there in political ceremonies but blanch at the prospect of making the presidency into a full-blown pulpit.

Posted by Rigamarole | January 18, 2008 11:18 AM

an increasingly-desperate attempt to appeal to a broader Joe-Sixpack constituency

I think you mean "a broader Jimmy Joe Jimbob-Sixpack constituency," no? While there are pocket populations everywhere where that fucking flag is used to offend, there really isn't the reverence for it up North that we seem to see among Southern conservatives. Maybe I run in the wrong circles to know, though.

Posted by SomeCallMeTim | January 18, 2008 11:23 AM

It's worth exploring the possibility that there's just no constituency in the Republican party that really wants to hear about government help. Or, more accurately, that when faced with a choice between a Huckabee-esque message and the standard "cut taxes, help business create jobs" message, most Republicans will gravitate twoards the latter.

Posted by Nicholas Beaudrot | January 18, 2008 12:02 PM

there really isn't the reverence for it up North that we seem to see among Southern conservatives.
Oh, in the south (especially South Carolina) it clings like kudzu to a pine tree. My recent visit to SC lead me to think that Ron Paul had the ole confederate constituency in his back pocket, but maybe Huckabee can peel off enough to put himself over the top.

Posted by blindjoedeath | January 18, 2008 12:02 PM

"looks like an increasingly-desperate attempt to appeal to a broader Joe-Sixpack constituency, but even if it works in the short term (and it probably won't) it's likely going to ensure his marginalization in the long run, by depriving him of the favorable media coverage that was part of his initial success"

That is probably accurate. But I wonder at what point the media in this country became the enemy of Joe-Sixpack.

Posted by James | January 18, 2008 1:17 PM

Rich (NRO) and others are treading dangerous ground. Their Christian-bashing might just alienate the biggest power base the GOP has. A secular GOP will be about as strong as the Libertarian Party. Good luck with that.

Posted by steve | January 18, 2008 1:40 PM

Some of us saw Huckabee as Uriah Heep and he hasn't disappointed us.

His innocent protests no longer play, and now that some of his supporters have been caught push-polling, no one believes he's not involved.

The Huckster's losing veters as Thompson gains them. Two "poor old boys" but one remained a hick and the other turned himself into a courtly Southern Gentleman I would be proud to have represent us on the world stage.

Thompson is raising money handily and Huckabee isn't.

The polls moved 14 ponts on election day in New Hampshire and now that Perot (in Newsweek) outed McCain on his closing down the search for POW's in Vietnam to "normalize relations" which the communist Vietnamese repaid Kerry/McCain by giving John FORBES Kerry's cousin, C, Stewart FORBES, CEO ol Colliers International, a billion dollar exclusive port deal. Sweet!

Posted by Sandra Mendoza | January 18, 2008 1:53 PM

I'm an evangelical, as are about half the folks I know, and none of us will vote for Huckabee, for various reasons:

He's not a fiscal conservative; he's not a foreign-policy hawk conservative; he's not a strict-constructionist enumerated-powers Constitutional conservative; he's not a small-government nearly-libertarian conservative. All these are disqualifiers.

But the biggest disqualifier is this: Evangelicals, helped by their own membership in the Reagan coalition, have improved their understanding of the difference between Christian morality and Mohammedian morality, as exercised by an elected official.

Huckabee's approach is not Christian; it is more Mohammedian.

To clarify: Jesus, Christians believe, had divine power available, by which he could enforce His moral code at any time...but never used it. To even become a Christian requires a voluntary decision ("whosoever believeth..."); "conversion by the sword" is a Christian heresy not only because it's evil, but it doesn't even work because the "conversion" is not heartfelt ("God looketh at the heart").

When a wealthy young guy sought Jesus' advice, Jesus told him to sell all he had and give the proceeds to the poor. The wealthy young man balked, and Jesus (God incarnate, the final arbiter of right and wrong in the universe, the only being with invincible power to compel right behavior and perfect wisdom to use it) just...let him go!

In short, Christian morality (especially regarding how to help the "less fortunate" is all about voluntary generosity, not compulsion. God loveth a "cheerful giver." "Peter," says Jesus, "put away your sword."

To sum it up, ask yourself this: How different would Christianity be had Jesus preached THIS message: "Give ye to the poor, and if your neighbor giveth not, hold your sword-point at his throat until he does! Look not at a woman lustfully; and if your neighbor does, pluck out his eyes."

Sound much like Jesus to you?

This is (according to the Koran) the way of Mohammed; it is (certainly) the way of the welfare state; and it is (judging by his speeches) Mike Huckabee's approach to solving social problems: To use government compulsion to fix people's problems at others' expense, and even to their bad habits, whether they want it or not.

We Christian Evangelicals who oppose Huckabee are glad that he wants to follow Christ; we just wish Huck would learn a bit more about his own faith first! But until that day comes, we've no desire to see this misguided soul in the Oval Office. Let Islamists support his Mohammedian style if they wish; for me and the evangelicals I know, Mike just isn't Christian enough.

Posted by R.C. | January 18, 2008 2:01 PM

Hey, Huckabee was also called a pseudopopulist around here before Crunchy Con central.

he got no bounce from Iowa in part because all the press wanted to talk about immediately afterward was McCain

That's fair enough, but it is worth noting that it wasn't pure media conspiracy territory, as is their pro-McCain, anti-Romney, anti-Edwards bias. Romney's Iowa loss actually did open things up in NH for McCain, because, as you point out, Huckabee's appeal doesn't reach the northeast.

Posted by Elvis Elvisberg | January 18, 2008 3:52 PM

Maybe. But, a southerner who can integrate his church alienating older white members as Huckabee did and defend the battle flag may have broader appeal than you think. That is if he has a fair hearing within the conservative press.

Posted by mt | January 19, 2008 7:14 AM

R.C.

I understand your position as that Christ would oppose the use of taxation for caring for the poor. Is that correct? Does this also apply to poor children?

For what things would Christ support the use of taxation (in your words, putting your sword at your neighbor's throat)?

You also suggest that Huckabee learn more about his faith. Do you think people learned in your faith are all libertarians?

Tom

Posted by Tom G. | January 19, 2008 2:43 PM