The Once and Future Future of the GOP

There was a time when I was firmly convinced that Mike Huckabee was going to be the Republican Party's nominee in 2008. Now I think that looks very unlikely. Nevertheless, noting a Rasmussen poll that has Huckabee marching into second place in Iowa, Andrew correctly notes that Huckabee "really does represent the GOP that Bush and Rove have helped create: based on fundamentalist religion and dedicated to massive government spending on the needy as a sign of one's own virtue." But what he represents is the Republican Party that Bush and Rove have created in terms of their electoral base. Which is why in Iowa, where the fact that he doesn't have much in the way of money or support from movement conservative elites doesn't hurt him so much, he's doing very well:

Nationally, though, he's in fifth place and it was felt necessary to push Fred Thompson into the race to fill the "white Protestant southern guy" demographic even though Huckabee already fit the bill. And the problem seems to be, basically, that even though Huckabee hasn't proposed much in the way of bold policies on the campaign trail, he just doesn't adequately meet the threshold for fanatical devotion to the interests of the rich to make it on today's institutional right.

As governor, he operated as a pragmatist, sometimes relying on mild and generally non-progressive tax hikes to meet balanced budget requirements without further denuding already low-service Arkansas of public services and for his trouble he gets trashed by the Club for Growth and is basically a non-starter as a figure in national Republican politics. Nevertheless, the logic of something like Huckabeeism (call it Sam's Club conservatism) is pretty compelling, and if the Republicans get thwacked in 2008 more conservative might begin to see it. The question remains, however, of who's supposed to pay for it?

Comments

"the GOP that Bush and Rove have helped create: based on fundamentalist religion and dedicated to massive government spending on the needy as a sign of one's own virtue."

Italics mine. WTF?

Posted by James Gary | October 18, 2007 4:46 PM

As a white Protestant Southern guy in recovery, I'm not surprised by Huckabee's current standing in Iowa: the evangelicals recognize him as one of their own, as opposed to the rest of 'em. But MY is likely right: Huckabee holds no real appeal for the moneyed GOP elite so it's hard to see where he goes . . . except he could peel away enough votes to make Mittster and Wackadoo Rudy sweat a little. Here's hoping!

By the way, I've said it before and I'll say it again: Dobson, Perkins and their crew are deadly serious about a third-party candidate. Anyone who thinks they can be brought into the Giuliani camp (like last week's Ezra) is whistling Dixie.

Posted by BryklynLibrul | October 18, 2007 4:49 PM

And the problem seems to be, basically, that even though Huckabee hasn't proposed much in the way of bold policies on the campaign trail, he just doesn't adequately meet the threshold for fanatical devotion to the interests of the rich to make it on today's institutional right.

Is this the local gossip, or just your guess? (I'd thought his Southerness might be the problem.)

Posted by SomeCallMeTim | October 18, 2007 4:51 PM

who's supposed to pay for it?

Nobody. It's not enough to be able to deliver the votes - anyone can do it; first you have to be good for business, delivering the votes is remote second. You can always try to win by demonizing the opponent.

Posted by abb1 | October 18, 2007 4:51 PM

People don't seem to understand that insurgent candidates simply don't get the nomination in GOP-land. It doesn't matter how "dangerous" the guy looks on paper.

Posted by Steve | October 18, 2007 4:58 PM

Talk about dynasties. Do we really want to have 2 presidents in 20 years who both grew up in the same tiny town in Arkansas?

With Huckabee in 2nd in Iowa, doesn't that make him a major contender no matter what national polling shows? The way our dysfunctional system works, if Huck pulls off a big win in Iowa, he'll get tons of press and people will want to start jumping on the bandwagon. I know the Iowa winner doesn't always get the nod, but I think this time the press is going to go so bananas that it will be very tough to beat whoever wins Iowa. The big question is, how is Huckabee doing in NH? If he can win there and Iowa, then it's over.

Of course, Hillary will mop the floor with him. Probably quite literally, pick him up and drag him upside down across the stage during at least two points in the presidential debates.

Posted by Rob Mac | October 18, 2007 4:58 PM

It's so sweet to finally see the GOP's electoral base and its money base at odds. In the words of F. Scott Firesign, "we've been waiting hundreds of years for this."

Posted by low-tech cyclist | October 18, 2007 4:59 PM

"The question remains, however, of who's supposed to pay for it?"

It's a good question -- one you should try asking about the massive spending increases Democratic candidates propose. Would a President Huckabee really spend more than a President Edwards?

Anyhow, forget about Huckabee. There ought to be a place for him in the Democratic Party, since he's essentially a southern populist. The only difference is while southern Dems talk about Jesus too (especially when they are in front of black crowds), Huckabee actually seems to believe in him.

Republicans are southerned-out after Bush 43 -- and he was a "southerner" who was born in Connecticut. Time for a change -- it'll be Romney or Giuliani.

Posted by Fred | October 18, 2007 5:01 PM

Here's a 30-second introduction to his "pragmatism". It's fun to see MattY promote him (for whatever reason). Hopefully when it's obvious to most just how, well "dirty" is such a dirty word, how about "soiled", he is hopefully there'll be a little splashback.

Posted by TLB | October 18, 2007 5:04 PM

"It's so sweet to finally see the GOP's electoral base and its money base at odds."

Counting down to a Don Williams post about Haim Saban in 3, 2, 1...

Posted by Juan | October 18, 2007 5:07 PM

"Of course, Hillary will mop the floor with him. Probably quite literally, pick him up and drag him upside down across the stage during at least two points in the presidential debates."

I don't know how a Huckabee campaign might stack up against the Clinton Machine, but the Huckster would "look" pretty good in contrast. He's either a genuinely nice guy or he can fake like no one else in the race this time around. I think Hillary would actually stand up pretty well to the vicious meaness she'd get from a Mitt or Giuliani, but I'm not sure her VERY controlled demeanor would look great in contrast to Hucakbee.

Mike

Posted by MBunge | October 18, 2007 5:10 PM

"I think Hillary would actually stand up pretty well to the vicious meaness she'd get from a Mitt or Giuliani"

Since when is Mittens Romney known for "meanness"? Have you ever met a Mormon in real life? They are like Flanders from The Simpsons.

Posted by Juan | October 18, 2007 5:15 PM

Nevertheless, the logic of something like Huckabeeism (call it Sam's Club conservatism) is pretty compelling

Maybe we can call it I {heart} Huckabees...

Posted by McKingford | October 18, 2007 5:17 PM

“We remain a hunted people. Now you think you have a destiny to fulfill in the land that historically has been ours for forty thousand years. And we’re a new Mestizo nation.”

“Our devil has pale skin and blue eyes…”

“We have got to eliminate the gringo, and what I mean by that is if the worst comes to the worst, we have got to kill him.”

– Professor Jose Angel Gutierrez, founder of La Raza

"Around the year 2040, whites will become a minority in the United States and, believe me, it will be 'payback time'."

- Pro-Immigration Activist, Jorge Sanchez

“And the one idea is, how we are going to exterminate white people because that in my estimation is the only conclusion I have come to. We have to exterminate white people off the face of the planet to solve this problem.”

- African Studies professor, Dr. Kamau Kambon

"Blond hair and blue eyes are a biological defect."

"The white race is a disease, and the only cure is a bullet. The rule of whites is history. Soon they will be our serfs. It's now the Age of the Brown Man."

- Hindu nationalist, Ramesh Sharma

“The goal of abolishing the white race is on its face so desirable that some may find it hard to believe that it could incur any opposition other than from committed white supremacists. Make no mistake about it we intend to keep bashing the dead white males, and the live ones, and the females too, until the social construct known as ‘the white race’ is destroyed–not ‘deconstructed’ but destroyed."

- Jewish studies professor, Dr Noel Ignatiev

.

Posted by Death of the West | October 18, 2007 5:33 PM

I'd guess Huckabee's real problem is his position on an amnesty for illegal immigrants. It's one issue where the base is too riled up to let things slide, and there's no hiding the fact that Huckabee is pro-amnesty. That puts him on the opposite side of the issue from 80 plus percent of the party base.

Posted by Brett Bellmore | October 18, 2007 5:36 PM

Huckabee supports the THIRD WORLD INVASION of the United States. He should be arrested and tried for treason.

Posted by REAL CONSERVATIVE | October 18, 2007 5:46 PM

But what he represents is the Republican Party that Bush and Rove have created in terms of their electoral base.

I don't get this sentence. Does Matthew mean Bush and Rove have "created" the present electoral base?

Which is why in Iowa, where the fact that he doesn't have much in the way of money or support from movement conservative elites doesn't hurt him so much, he's doing very well

I don't see this. As I understand it, Huckabee has put a LOT of effort into Iowa, whereas Rudy and McCain have run a more national campaign, focusing on NH and SC and MI and FL. That, to me, explains perfectly why Huckabee can be doing quite well in Iowa but is nowhere nationally.

Posted by Al | October 18, 2007 5:57 PM

According to that chart Huckabee's still in fourth place. What's more interesting is the rise and fall of Guiliani.

Posted by Jose Padilla | October 18, 2007 6:01 PM

Since when is Mittens Romney known for "meanness"? Have you ever met a Mormon in real life? They are like Flanders from The Simpsons.

How much time have you spent with Mormons? Like anybody Mormons come in all flavors - but anyone who's lived in Utah knows that despite the polite demeanor some of those devout religious Mormons are complete sons of bitches. I've done business with them, and if you're not a Mormon they'll quite happily stick a knife in you while smiling to your face.

Posted by vanya | October 18, 2007 6:01 PM

I don't get this sentence. Does Matthew mean Bush and Rove have "created" the present electoral base?

I suspect he means that the electoral base coalition as configured by Bush and Rove is slightly different in membership and, more likely, relative weights within the coalition--more Southern, more evangelical, more socially conservative, more rural, etc.--than prior Republican coalitions, when some of those people were just along for the ride.

Posted by SomeCallMeTim | October 18, 2007 6:09 PM

Matt, you linked to the Club for Growth's whitepaper on Huckabee, but how about the entire website they've put up just to point out how much of an evil person he is for wanting to, you know, pay for the services that his state provides for people:

http://www.taxhikemike.org/

They really, really hate him. It's kinda funny - the perfect candidate to bring in the fundie vote drives the anti-tax loonies insane, while the candidate that the anti-tax loonies like the best (check out their loving tribute to Giulianni in their white papers) is the most despised by the fundies.

Posted by NonyNony | October 18, 2007 6:25 PM

Why is Huckabee beating Brownback? Aren't the two interchangeable?

Posted by Quietus | October 18, 2007 6:45 PM

Since when is Mittens Romney known for "meanness"? Have you ever met a Mormon in real life? They are like Flanders from The Simpsons.

I don't know. I watch Big Love, and those Mormons scheme like a summabitch...

Posted by McKingford | October 18, 2007 7:14 PM

Wow, Huckabee obviously loses the xenophobe portion of the GOP base!

Blogging on him is like setting out honey and waiting for the bees to come buzzing.

Posted by bob | October 18, 2007 7:29 PM

I have no idea why the Club for Growth hates Huckabee but gives Giuliani a pass, but it seems totally biased and subjective to me.

Posted by bob | October 18, 2007 7:30 PM

Huckabee will pass Fred Thompson, who will be in single digits soon in every poll, and he'll pass Giuliani soon as well.

Posted by bob | October 18, 2007 7:32 PM

Wow, Huckabee obviously loses the xenophobe portion of the GOP base!

In Democraticeze, "xenophobe" is synonymous with "opposition to collaboration with an aggressive foreign country that supports illegal activity in the U.S., whereas the Democratic Party supports such collaborations and illegal activity."

Posted by TLB | October 18, 2007 7:43 PM

Huckabee lacks the big-money connections as well, unlike Romney/Giuliani/Thompson. If you think about it, it makes what Bill Clinton did even more impressive in a way, although back then you could run a campaign for far less.

Posted by bob | October 18, 2007 7:50 PM

Everytime I have seen Huckabee on television, it has seemed to me that he was doing everything he could to signal to Rich People that he is a safe choice.

Huckabee may not have gotten much money, yet, but that's because most of the money in the Republican Party comes from the corporate executive class, a large part of which has migrated to the Democrats in this election cycle. That's not Huckabee's fault, though I don't think he appeals to them much -- that's Bush's fault for being an incompetent fool.

The importance of religion in the authoritarian electoral base of the Republican Party is exaggerated. The real, core Bush voter is the 30-something white male, who dropped out of college, who is full of resentments and misinformation and doesn't want to think he needs anyone to take care of him, least of all the government. He's not religious, even though he may go to church occasionally. And, Huckabee's appeal leaves him totally out of the picture. This guy doesn't give money to campaigns, but he votes and he's easily manipulated. Bush's brush-cutting, stupid-as-moral-clarity persona was aimed directly at this guy. And, I don't think Huckabee appeals to that guy at all. Giuliani does. Romney tries to. Thompson might. But, Huckabee gets nothing from that guy.

Posted by Bruce Wilder | October 18, 2007 8:28 PM

Huckabee, Brownback, McCain, and Giuliani all support the third-world invasion of the U.S., and thus are guilty of TREASON.

Unless Tancredo, Paul or Hunter gets the nomination, I'm voting 3rd party.

Posted by Special Agent Dale Cooper | October 18, 2007 9:31 PM

Re: The importance of religion in the authoritarian electoral base of the Republican Party is exaggerated.

In the GOP as a whole I agree. But as far as the loyal Bush base goes the Religious Right faction is about the only truly loyal faction left. These people think of Bush as the Lord's anointed and as such he can do no wrong. The larger GOP base is another matter: most of them are not George Bush fans at all, it's just they are loyal to the party and for now that means they must be loyal to Bush since there isn't another GOP president for them to follow. Once he's gone they'll say (semi)publicly what they now say (very) privately: that he's been a disaster for the party and so they'll set about exorcizing the party of his influence. Which will mean civil war with the Bush-worshipping faction.

Posted by JonF | October 18, 2007 10:06 PM

"Why is Huckabee beating Brownback? Aren't the two interchangeable?

Posted by Quietus | October 18, 2007 6:45 PM"

I think Brownback may be Catholic.

Posted by Reality Man | October 19, 2007 5:17 AM

Brownback is a former Evangelical who converted to Catholicism while in the Senate.

Posted by Brittain33 | October 19, 2007 9:24 AM

The real, core Bush voter is the 30-something white male, who dropped out of college, who is full of resentments and misinformation and doesn't want to think he needs anyone to take care of him, least of all the government. He's not religious, even though he may go to church occasionally. And, Huckabee's appeal leaves him totally out of the picture. This guy doesn't give money to campaigns, but he votes and he's easily manipulated. Bush's brush-cutting, stupid-as-moral-clarity persona was aimed directly at this guy. And, I don't think Huckabee appeals to that guy at all. Giuliani does. Romney tries to. Thompson might. But, Huckabee gets nothing from that guy.
Posted by Bruce Wilder | October 18, 2007 8:28 PM

You've nailed it. The biggest challenge that America faces is "the chud factor", the 27%ers who will gladly vote for the most viscious leader possible. Giuliani captures this perfectly, which is what makes him in my opinion the most dangerous man to run for President since Barry Goldwater, although with Goldwater at least you would have had a constitutional President, Giuliani, not so much, it would be executive priviledge worse than Bush if you can imagine such a thing, real fuhrerprincip, and that does not even touch what both men have in common, a thirst for globalwar with an evil enemy regardless of the facts on the ground.

Posted by Northern Observer | October 19, 2007 9:47 AM

NO one responded to the first commenter's great point, which was, 'how does Matt accept as a given,' The GOP that Bush and Rove have helped create: based on fundamentalist religion and DEDICATED TO MASSIVE GOVERNMENT SPENDING ON THE NEEDY AS A SIGN OF ONE'S OWN VIRTUE?

Matt, that sentence actually requires an Update. Seriously. In the update, you should discuss the difference between "compassionate conservatism" that Huckabee appears to perhaps actually stand for and the faux-compassion of Bush, who ditched it entirely once he entered office and never even mentioned it in 2004. Just ask David Kuo. Seriously Matt, change this sentence, PLEASE

Posted by Dan B | October 19, 2007 11:26 AM

Dan B, they probably figured that Matt can't slander Andrew, a fellow Atlantic blogger (where 'slander' means 'point out his lie').

Posted by Barry | October 19, 2007 12:13 PM

"How much time have you spent with Mormons?"

I've worked with a few, I've been to Salt Lake City on business, and I even got a tour of the temple in Oakland, CA, by one who had some sort of rank in the church. The one who gave me that tour, incidentally, was a bank officer based out of SLC who was responsible for business in the San Francisco Bay Area. When I asked him the obvious question about dealing with gays in business, his answer was a model of tolerance. The Mormons I've met all seem like the sort of people you'd love to have living next door to you.

Posted by Juan | October 19, 2007 2:44 PM

Its amusing to see leftists define who the Republicans are and peg who the Republican nominee should be/will be. You don't have a clue.

But you do have Hillary. Enjoy.

Posted by BeerHere | October 19, 2007 5:29 PM