Take one moderately conservative governor of a small southern state. Add a little cornpone humor, endow him with an unctuous speaking style, fill him with syrupy policy prescriptions. And then dump a truckload of socially conservative positions in the mix and what you have is the future mold of the Republican party candidate for president.
With the ascension of Mike Huckabee to near front runner status in the race for the Republican nomination, the Grand Old Party is looking at something of a hybrid candidate compared to past hopefuls; a “big government” conservative who projects a more moderate image on fiscal and economic issues but whose stand on abortion, gay marriage and other social issues matches those of the rock ribbed, grassroots Christian conservatives that increasingly are making a decisive difference in the primaries.
Not that the Christian conservatives didn’t make an impact in previous campaigns. But this is a different Republican party than the one that confidently put forth George W. Bush for a second term in 2004. The party’s losses in the 2006 election cut deeply into some of its traditional strongholds in the upper south and Midwest while nearly destroying the party in New England and the northeast. The color of the electoral map is beginning to match the mood of the GOP; getting bluer as time goes on. Even in the mountain west, a Republican stronghold for decades, is seeing serious challenges to Republican hegemony in Colorado, Nevada, and New Mexico.
There are as many reasons for this swing of the pendulum as there are pundits. But one basic fact overrides all others; the American voter is less conservative, more open to government solutions than they were just a decade ago.
And perhaps most importantly, they believe the Democrats can do a better job of dealing with issues that are most important to them.
For example, a recent USA Today-Gallup poll showed that the American people believe the most important issue confronting the country is the War in Iraq. By a 10 point margin – 48%-38% – voters believe the Democrats are better able to deal with the war. The second most important issue named in the survey was the economy. Voters feel Democrats better able to handle that issue by a 50% – 38% tally. The GOP scores with the third most important issue; illegal immigration. They maintain a plurality of 44% – 37% of support for their approach.
But a further sign that the Republicans are in trouble comes from their shrinking lead among voters who view Homeland Security/Terrorism as an important issue. From a lead of 58% – 36% on election day 2004, the Democrats have closed the gap to 48% – 38%. And with national security fading in importance as an issue, not only will the Republican advantage become less pronounced but the issue won’t cut against the Democrats so severely.
Beyond specific issues, a Pew Research poll found Americans growing less socially and economically conservative over the last decade while younger voters show more faith in government solutions to problems than their elders. And for the first time since the 1970’s, the phrase “The best way to insure peace is through military strength” garners a bare plurarlity who agree (49% – 47%).
All of this points to an electorate that would seem to be unfriendly to the kind of traditional conservatism candidates like Mitt Romney, John McCain, and Fred Thompson are running on. And this is where Mike Huckabee’s more moderate, government friendly kind of conservatism may play better among the general populace than his fellows.
Make no mistake. Huckabee is extremely conservative on social issues. Some of his utterances over the years raise the hackles of women, gays, AIDS patients, and those less outwardly religious than the Baptist minister.
But his record as Arkansas governor reveals someone who was more interested in results than ideology. He has earned the enmity of the conservative Club For Growth for his tax and spending policies during his 10 1/2 years as governor because Huckabee did some decidedly unconservative things while in office. He funded road building by raising taxes. He initiated a state sponsored health care program for kids. He raised taxes a total of 21 times, increasing the average tax burden on state residents from $1,969 in the fiscal year that ended June 30, 1997, to $2,902 in the fiscal year that ended June 30, 2005.
Huckabee has since embraced the so-called “Fair Tax” proposal that would tax consumption and not income. No one gives the proposal a ghost of a chance to win approval in Congress and the candidate’s adopting the idea may have been so that he could tap in to the grass roots enthusiasm for the measure. Fair Tax advocates are passionate about the idea and they have flocked to Huckabee’s banner since he is the only Republican candidate pushing the program.
Huckabee was extremely popular in Arkansas because he addressed the needs of the people and made government work efficiently to address their problems. As the country moves more toward the center, this is the message they want to hear from politicians. What traditional Republican candidates are offering may play well within the party but the broader electorate could ultimately reject. A candidate who can speak the language of government as helper without making it seem as if he is a traditional liberal while espousing conservative social views may be the wave of the future for Republicans. And Huckabee may be riding that wave all the way to the nomination.
UPDATE
Lest there be any confusion, this is in no way and endorsement for Huckabee or his policies. Regular readers know I can’t abide his shameless pandering to the Christian right nor his squishy foreign policy or blatantly liberal fiscal and tax policies.
But Slim Guy has it pegged in the comments – his appeal goes beyond Christian conservatives and has tapped a rich vein of “Main Street” conservatives – people who have an affinity for the religious right and who see the party as too “corporate” or beholden to Wall Street.
This is also indicative of an urban/rural split in the GOP that absolutely must be healed if the Republicans expect to win next November.
12:49 pm
pukeabee.
even mccain is better.
1:05 pm
I will vote for HRC before Huck. If our country is going into the crapper, I want a dem leading
1:15 pm
Should Huckabee gets the nomination I’m voting for Hillary or Obama or Edwards; if the American Center wants more govt restrictions, higher taxes, further intrusion into personal lives, less enforcemnt of law then why go halfway, just do it all at once so that the Misery Index can be achieved in half the time.
I simply do not understand why free people would consider marching towards serfdom under government command with such determination and glee.
If it weren’t for a terrible decision which led to a horrid law(Roe vs Wade) the American political landscape would not be a messed up as it is; indicated by the Ron Pauls and the Mike Huckebees who can use abortion to manipulate their extreme platforms. There are as many progressive pro-lifesrs as there are conservative pro-lifers that the issue negates itself.
As for the preacher thing, it perplexes me that decade after decade traditionally social conservative blacks and African-Americans who are against things like abortions and gay marriage have been preached to vote into power the abortionists since in return they are offered the gold coins of entitlement goodies plus the bonus Defense of Marriage Act; this deception that the government is their savior doesn’t make much sense when 1/3 of all abortions are against black and African-American women or when it has decimated the family unit causing 70% of all children who weren’t aborted to be born to unwed mothers or built massive ghettos of crime, prostitution, drugs, ignorance and helplessness.
I guarantee that after four years of ‘centrist’ Huckabee, Hillary, Obama,Edwards governance the majority of Americans will be begging for the Conservative leadership to lead them out of their high Misery Index.
1:16 pm
What I have issue with is how deep is support for Huck in the real world.
Most seem to claim that it is a surge of the religious right. I have issues with that concept since from the beginning of the early announced candidates, he would have been the one they were most likely to identify with.
His poll numbers were so far in the basement for so long that it challenges that concept. The only way you could explain it is that they would have supported him but considered in not electable and support has snowballed and fed on itself to get him where he is now.
Still I don’t think the number of religion as a primary issue voters have that much strength and there is something else in play here.
I just don’t think that from an electability standpoint he can go the distance and draw enough from the quasi or secular voters to carry the day. Plus I have policy issues with his positions.
Unless money has started to roll in for him, he had the least funds available except for McCain at the last quarterly report. He needs bucks to make it work and it could be flowing, but we really have no good way to gauge that at this point.
1:41 pm
“Huckabee did some decidedly unconservative things while in office. He funded road building by raising taxes. He initiated a state sponsored health care program for kids. He raised taxes a total of 21 times, increasing the average tax burden on state residents from $1,969 in the fiscal year that ended June 30, 1997, to $2,902 in the fiscal year that ended June 30, 2005”
I must say that I think many conservative Governors would be shocked that doing a gas tax for raods is unconservative.
Again showing how dishonest these Club for Growth attacks are
2:04 pm
Huckabee is the perfect republican candidate for the democrats and the MSM. He has so many non-conservative principles and so many skeletons in his closet that it would be a field day for his democratic rival and the MSM. Likely it would lead to his certain defeat in the general election as many conservatives would bail on him, voting 3rd party (my choice) or not at all.
I hope that the pols showing Huckabee in the lead are as meaningful as the MSM’s exit pols of Kerry winning the 2004 election; wishful thinking.
2:26 pm
> With the ascension of Mike Huckabee to near front runner status in the race for the Republican nomination, ...
Don’t confuse “near front runner status” with gaining the approval of the majority of Republicans. We’re talking 20-25% not 45-55%.
2:58 pm
Huckabee’s tenure as governor saw many gifts bestowed upon Arkansas official…
WASHINGTON | If friends or admirers are considering a Christmas gift for suddenly surging Republica…
3:32 pm
So then are we saying to just pack it in? Give in to a giant Nanny State? Delightful.
3:34 pm
>>> “...the American voter is less conservative, more open to government solutions than they were just a decade ago.”
That’s what happens when “conservatives” decide that it’s a good idea to promote their own values through government. As soon as you start asking for federal “solutions” to issues such as gay marriage, abortion, and stem cell research, you’ve already given up the game. All we have now are two groups with competing ideas on morality tussling over who gets to impose their will on the rest of the country. It’s no surprise that citizens would come to expect the government to deal with everything they see as a problem.
No, I’m not a Ron Paul supporter/spammer.
5:09 pm
Hi Rick,
Your article appears to point out that the Republican Presidential candidate with views or positions most closely aligned the Democratic party is Mike Huckabee. Based pretty much on religious issues Huckabee is anointed with the prefix Conservative. Huckabee like Romney leaves me wondering where he really stands on many of the other important issues. I know what both gentlemen currently say their positions are, likewise for Guiliani.
The Republican party has three potential candidates running for nomination that we can pretty much pin to the wall regarding (with almost certainty) where they stand on the issues and based on that, the positions we would expect them to follow as our president.
Those candidates, John McCain, Ron Paul and Fred Thompson probably have the most consistent records relating to their positions on ALL issues. If the party were to nominate one of these candidates I could understand why the choice was made. I might not agree with the choice that was made but I would know why that choice was made. Their obvious record and consistent position on issues(for the most part)dictates that. As Republicans our choice should be made among those top three candidates. The choices as represented by each would be limited conservatism (John McCain), consistant conservatisim (Fred Thompson) or radical conservatism (Ron Paul).
Pick any one of the Democrats running for president and you pretty much know what their presidential format would be. Pick McCain, Thompson or Paul and you also know what to expect. But with Romney, Guiliani or Huckabee, really, I just don’t know. They express one thing today, and based on their history would you put money on their view remaining consistent after being elected president?
I wouldn’t.
If the candidate is to speak the language of government as helper without making it seem as if he is a traditional liberal while espousing conservative social views we might be back peddling to the Republican party of years past. That might not be a bad thing but we should at least feel confident about what the candidates are telling us.
7:58 pm
Climbing aboard the Huck bandwagon, are we?
When is someone going to ask Huck how he is going to win without the West, his having alienated all the Mormons and libertarians who live out here.
8:02 pm
I find it absolutely fascinating that despite going so far as putting an UPDATE to the post explaining I wasn’t for Huckabee, that I hated Huckabee, that I think him an idiot, that some numbskull of a commenter would blindly go ahead without reading what I wrote and accuse me of “Climbing aboard the Huck bandwagon.”
It takes a special kind of idiocy to do that and I congratulate you Mr. Rasband. You truly are the Clueless Commenter of the Day and are in the running for Cluebat of the Year.
12:26 pm
Hi Rick. Sorry for being late to the party on this one. My condolences on your loss.
You edged right up to a hugely important point in your “big government conservative” (BGC) argument but didn’t go all the way, namely: The BGC phenomenon is the creation of the Republican party. Under Delay and Bush there was an explosion of earmarks and the biggest new entitlement program since LBJ, not to mention the resulting deficits. Conservative commentators were shamefully silent as all this happened so the implicit message was “we love big government as long as we’re the ones making it big!” They sold GOP small-government credibility for a generation and the chickens are just starting to come home to roost. For a similar reason I suspect Ron Paul is making lots of noise among those looking for the second coming of Ross Perot. Perot ended up freaking out but despite his spectacular self-immolation keep this in mind: He got 20% of the vote and a few years later the budget was in balance.
4:46 am
As the creator of “Reasons to Reject Republicans” database ( see my web site ) I wouldn’t vote for any Republican candidate. “Never vote Republican” is my mantra. But Huckabee has “the right stuff” to lead America. He just made a bad choice when he became a Republican.
Fundamentally, the United States is a religious country and he’s a preacher. We need a preacher after 8 year of George Bush and his cabal of amoral capitalist money-loving monsters. Remember what Jesus said to the rich man:
“Sell everything you have and give it to the poor.”
I wonder if Huckabee will remind us that “the love of money is the root of all (much) evil.”