Idle Dreams of Republicans

"Why Can't Mike Huckabee Catch Fire?" asks Newsweek. I want to know the same thing. Ross Douthat says I'm part of the problem:

Maybe it's because the people who seem most enthused by him are Matt Yglesias, Ezra Klein, Russell Arben Fox, and Salon's Michael Scherer.

This is true. In all honestly, though, I would at least think Ross might be a Huckabee enthusiast, even though his campaign is obviously doomed. It also bears mentioning that Huckabee isn't even my favorite Republican -- that honor goes to Chuck Hagel who I guess isn't officially running. At a minimum, though, he should toss his hat into the ring and run an anti-war campaign saying real conservatism is about limited government and traditional values at home, and that in foreign policy terms neither limited government nor traditional American values nor traditional Christian values supports Bush-style neo-imperialism. He won't win, but it'd be nice to see someone keep the Terrible Three on their toes.

As a general matter, I find the conservative inability to get enthused about a dark horse -- pick a dark horse, any dark horse, and get enthused -- totally impossible to comprehend. Is everyone really so excited about John McCain drooling his way through a general election?

Comments

Jonah Goldberg is smarter than Ross Douthat.

Posted by ogged | March 7, 2007 12:43 AM

Maybe I should flesh that out a bit. The liberal "enthusiasm" for Huckabee should only be a warning to Republicans if it's based on policy agreement, but Huckabee is far, far to the right of all the people who have wondered why he's not doing better. However, they (we) are just so fucking happy to see a Republican candidate who doesn't seem either daft, crazy or malevolent that our generosity doth overflow. But in answering as he has, Douthat gives away the real answer: because Republicans are supposed to stick it to liberals, and Huckabee seems like too much of a human being to do that to their satisfaction.

Posted by ogged | March 7, 2007 12:55 AM

Ogged,

I think that Ross was making a much simpler point than you suggest. He wasn't so much saying that "support from so many liberals proves that Huckabee is a lousy candidate from a conservative perspective", which is more or less what you are assuming he is saying. He is making the more simple point that the recent buzz in favor of Huckabee isn't coming from people who have any influence among Republicans.

Ross doesn't express his opinion on Huckabee. He does offer some tentative speculation on why Huckabee isn't getting any traction, but he doesn't sugggest for a moment that Huckebee isn't conservative enough.

And Ross, for all of his manifest faults, really doesn't play the "let's pick a candidate who will piss off liberals" game.

Posted by Larry M | March 7, 2007 1:15 AM

I"ve always felt that as opposite as the brownbacks and huckabees are to most progressive and liberals (anti gay marriage, prolife etc etc) i see no reason why we can't make a strategic alliance with them on social justice issues. Say what you will about Sam Brownback, but he did adopt two children, from guatemala and china respectively. He speaks pretty powerfully about AIDs in Africa, has expressed doubts about the death penelty and has British abolitionst William Wilberforce as a hero. Huckabee is simliar, he clearly cares about social justice issues, seemingly more so than most liberals, "If I really know what it means to follow Jesus, it means no kid goes hungry tonight," I wish democrats talked about social justice that way. I know it will be hard to get them to divorce, temporarily on specific issues, from various GOP constituences (like fiscal conservatives). But on things like universal dental care, food stamps and a plethora of social justice legislation, progressives and liberals should temporarily but aside our weariness, scorn and even disgust for political evangelicals and do what we both know to be right. Just like we urge Bush to talk to Iran and Syria about Iraq, we too should recognize that politics isn't about only hanging out with your friends, but talking with and reaching common ground with your "enemeies" Oh yeah, and I like Brownback and Huckabee because despite their strong religous beliefs they just don't seem like such jackasses compared to mccain, romney and guiliani. I hope Ross DOuthat and Reihan Salam are right, if the future of the GOP is huckabee and brownback (pro family GOP) then we might be able to make some serious strides to a more just society, don't expect the right to reach out to us first, we should take the initiative.

Posted by matt z | March 7, 2007 1:24 AM

Matt, are you planning on stepping away from basketball and electoral politics any time soon and getting back to thinking about the world? Both passtimes constitute escapism - fun and games for the bored and irresolute. There are about 719 things happening in the world right now that are more important than the preliminary jockeyings of US presidential candidates - particularly Republicans.

You seem to be picking up a case of that virulent MSM illness whose chief symptom is excessive interest in the racing form.

Posted by Dan Kervick | March 7, 2007 1:24 AM

How much of a factor is McCain's campaign finance reform that doesn't allow governors to move political funds over to federal campaigns? Aren't people like Huckabee and Richardson starting in a huge hole now?

Posted by A different matt | March 7, 2007 1:29 AM

Isn't the very idea of a dark horse kind of anti-republican? Dark horses are very 'outside the norm', 'anti-establishment', chaos-causing. They're downright messy. And republicans, especially these days, don't like messy.

Posted by Robert Earle | March 7, 2007 1:33 AM

Robert Earle,
Doesn't this primary have all the hallmarks of getting messy? You have three guys that will sell their soul to the devil to be the nominee. Talk about messy to the Nth degree.

Posted by This Machine Kills Fascists | March 7, 2007 1:50 AM

Dan --

In Matt's defense, he is apparently writing a book right now that is very much about "the world." It's quite possible that the high-and-mighty thinking is going into the book, with the "escapism" focused here on the blog. But since the development of the Republican Party and the conservative movement in America has had considerable influence on "the world" recently, I'm not sure that examining their inner workings constitutes "escapism."

Posted by greg marx | March 7, 2007 1:56 AM

I think spontaneous combustion is an overrated campaign ploy.

Posted by alphie | March 7, 2007 1:58 AM

Unless someone is going to be doing a lot of traveling and reporting, I really don't need to hear what they think about "the world" as such.

Posted by guy | March 7, 2007 2:09 AM

Huckabee is also a lunatic who doesn't believe in evolution, rather than a Republican version of Bill Richardson, by the way.

Posted by guy | March 7, 2007 2:10 AM

you're a pinko. deal with it yglesias.

Posted by razib | March 7, 2007 2:19 AM

Huckabee is just not exciting. There are no flawed character traits, no flip-flops, no outlandish statement, no controversial affiliations. What's to write about or talk about? Sometime I wonder if American wants competent government or "reality" TV. But regardless of which it wants, I know which one it's getting.

Posted by Alan | March 7, 2007 6:08 AM

The real question is not whether Huckabee will catch on fire, but whether, when he does, it will be worthwhile to piss on him to put him out . . .

Posted by rea | March 7, 2007 6:49 AM

"If I really know what it means to follow Jesus, it means no kid goes hungry tonight," I wish democrats talked about social justice that way.

er...you mean Democrats other than Edwards (and quite a few others)?

Posted by jonnybutter | March 7, 2007 8:00 AM

But since the development of the Republican Party and the conservative movement in America has had considerable influence on "the world" recently, I'm not sure that examining their inner workings constitutes "escapism."

Yes, well there always seems to be a Republican Party and its inner workings are under perpetual, nauseatingly thorough microanalysis by any number of hack reporters and opinionators in Washington and around the country. The same is true of the Democratic party. There is a vast bubble-headed politirazzi devoted to the care and feeding of US electoral politics. I don't think more voices are particularly needed in this very saturated field. But if Matt wants to be just another Capital Gangster or McLaughlinite, that's his career choice.

Electoral politics is mostly just a game. People like to pick a team, and then argue about the trades, the managerial hirings and firings, spring training, the injury list, tactical missteps, the benchings, and the size of the contracts. It's all very entertaining, but in the end which front man the Republicns happen to settle on makes a lot less difference to what happens in this country that what Grover Norquist, William Kristol, Pat Robertson and Newt Gingrich - and to a less extent the mass of Republican voters - think the front man should do. The rotation on Gilbert Arenas's jump shot has more cosmic significance than whatever wind happens to be blowing out of Mitt Romney's mouth this week.

Posted by Dan Kervick | March 7, 2007 8:00 AM

A similar question is why can't Gilmore catch on fire?

And why can't Richardson catch on fire.

It's governors who generallly win this thing, but this year, no one will take successful governors seriously. It's really odd.

Posted by pj | March 7, 2007 8:27 AM

Huckabee is just not exciting. There are no flawed character traits, no flip-flops, no outlandish statement, no controversial affiliations.

Wayne Dumond. Believing that evolutionary theory is a lie. Using wedding registries to exploit a loophole in ethics law so he could receive larger gifts when leaving office. Covenant marriage. Hatred for homosexuality, which he's wily enough to keep below Coulteresque levels. Joking about his weight loss by saying, "I have just come out of six weeks at a concentration camp held by the Democrat Party of Arkansas in an undisclosed location, making a hostage tape." This is why Mr. Douthat is confused; many of us aren't enthusiastic about Huckabee; we have merely learned to keep an eye on hard-right "compassionate conservatives" who espouse theocratic ideas. Given the current Republican nomination process, why wouldn't we expect a Southern Baptist minister who was also a Southern governor to have a shot?

On the last, pj raises a good point. Everyone knows that governors are better, yet Romney's the only one currently getting any traction? Still, it's very early in the game.

Posted by mds | March 7, 2007 8:54 AM

No one will ever vote for someone with the last name "Huckabee." I wish I were kidding.

Posted by Hoyt Pollard | March 7, 2007 9:04 AM

The "drooling" remark struck me as gratuitous and mean, though I don't think Matt will need to go into rehab for it.

Posted by Barry | March 7, 2007 9:09 AM

Why the hunt for a darkhorse? The GOP doesn't do darkhorses. According to polls, GOP voters are pretty excited about Guiliani. We won't see McCain "drooling his way through a general election" because he won't be the nominee. Given the party's tendency to nominate frontrunners, I'm on the verge of calling this one. The GOP knows how to win national elections and they known Guiliani will win in November.

Posted by towolk | March 7, 2007 9:15 AM

Huckabee is simliar, he clearly cares about social justice issues, seemingly more so than most liberals,

WHAT? Sorry, it's liberals who are pushing for minimum wage increases. It's liberals who are screaming about the need to rebuild New Orleans. It's liberals who are ranting about the uninsured. It's liberals who fight against the pervasive racism that still exists in our society, especially in our criminal justice system--you can't throw a rock in a legal aid office without hitting a liberal, m'kay?

I'm sure that John Edwards launched his Democratic Presidential Primary Campaign from a backyard in New Orleans's 9th ward because the liberals who vote in that primary don't care about poverty.

What. Ev. Er.

Posted by anonymous | March 7, 2007 9:29 AM

The problem with Mike Huckabee, Jim Gilmore, Duncan Hunter, and the other wannabees is that they haven't achieved the celebrity super-asshole status needed to win the GOP nomination in 2008.

Of course, McCain and Giuliani are long time super-assholes because of their volcanic tempers and shameless opportunism. And Mitt Romney just passed his super-asshole qualifier last weekend. After having diligently worked on his opportunism for the last four years, Romney achieved full super-asshole status by buttering up Ann Coulter at last week's CPAC conference. Congratulations, Mitt. No more whining in the back of the limo. You're now a contender.

Huckabee, Gilmore, Hunter, and Tommy Thompson may well be super-assholes, but they haven't shown that they've got what it takes to be CELEBRITY super-assholes. If any of these guys wants to go down as anything but a pathetic, presidential loser, they can't just be right-wing jerks. They have to become super-asshole icons.

I wish them all well and I'd certainly like to see the emergence of a Bush legacy candidate. Maybe Newt Gingrich (certainly a super-asshole for the ages) will take up the banner. These other guys just don't cut it.

Posted by Ric Caric | March 7, 2007 10:12 AM

"Huckabee, Gilmore, Hunter, and Tommy Thompson may well be super-assholes, but they haven't shown that they've got what it takes to be CELEBRITY super-assholes."

Tragically, I think there just might be a lot of truth to this.

As for social justice issues, of course liberals are the ones who have mostly put them first; that's why people with progressive economic views vote for liberal Democrats, as I presumably will. However, if you also happen to be something of a traditionalist--as I am--then when you see a conservative making what seems to me to be the obvious connection between orthodox religious and social justice, you get a little excited, even if you don't intend to vote for them.

Basically, I'm just waiting for one of the parties to morph into a Christian Social Democratic party. I figure I have a long wait in front of me.

Posted by Russell Arben Fox | March 7, 2007 12:21 PM

Does Matt know something about John McCain's physical condition that the rest of us don't? I mean, I know McCain's old, and he had skin cancer, but what's with the "drooling" remark? Does he have Alzheimer's or something too?

Posted by too many steves | March 7, 2007 12:50 PM

I thought the "drooling" remark was pretty shitty. It reads like an implication that anyone who's old must be senile. Which is like saying anyone with black skin must be a car thief.

Posted by Kyle | March 7, 2007 2:03 PM

McCain is clearly showing symptoms of senility. Any lengthy profile features a read-between-the-lines bit on this, usually couched in euphemisms about how he repeats himself a lot. Sad for him, but he's led a hard life and it's not surprising. The guy also can barely walk. He's in no way fit to be president.

Posted by guy | March 7, 2007 2:16 PM