The Huckabee Void

On a Christmas Eve CNBC broadcast that I'm sure nobody watched, John Fund and I wound up agreeing that there was something remarkably vacuous to Mike Huckabee's economic populism. It doesn't even rise to the level of a lie the way George W. Bush's "different kind of Republican" schtick did in 2000 -- there's just nothing there. Earlier on the same show, John Harwood had interviewed Huckabee, went over Huckabee's dislike for outlandish CEO pay and the outsourcing of jobs, then asked Huckabee what he planned to do about it as president. Well, the answer turned out to be nothing.

At any rate, via Ambinder, the governor explains that he doesn't need policy proposals to be a worthwhile presidential candidate: "I can hire people, once I raise the money, who can come up with all kinds of proposals. That's fine. That's good. But the real question is: Am I going to be able to be a leader? You know there is a difference between a leader and a manager." But no. Leadership is, yes, an important part of the job of being president. But there's no such thing as generic "leadership" people need to know what sort of thing you want to do. That doesn't mean detailed legislative language on every aspect of your agenda, but you need to say something about what your top priorities are and what general direction you want to move in.

Comments

This is exactly what was said about W: that it didn't matter that he was a fool, because he'd hire good people, and it wasn't a leader's job to micromanage. Any decent general election opponent should be able to nail Huckabee to this.

Posted by Matt Weiner | December 31, 2007 10:38 AM

Mr. Yglesias should be ashamed of himself appearing with a cocksucking shithead like John Fund on a talk show. The former is like those liberal assholes who appear on the fascist news channel.

Posted by SLC | December 31, 2007 10:53 AM

Huckabee: another "are-you-fucking-kidding-me" candidate, in the wise words of Bill Maher.

Posted by I have a large penis | December 31, 2007 10:57 AM

Eh. Huckabee's argument seems curiously similar to the competence argument being used by HRC, and should be amicable to someone like Yglesias who believes that all estimations of what candidates believe (or, relatedly, what candidates might be more likely to believe in the future when confronted with a problem) are irrelevant. Huckabee's right when he says or implies that there is a policy shop establishment out there from which Republicans can pick ideas. Per prior Yglesias posts, Huckabee's priorities and direction will be set by the coalition that gets him elected.

Posted by SomeCallMeTim | December 31, 2007 11:11 AM

The problem with the Bush comparison is that Bush, ultimately, was lying when he said he was compassionate - it wasn't a problem of execution.

Huckabee is at least up front - even confrontational - about the values that will dictate the details of his economic policy. That part is certainly not vacuous.

Posted by berger | December 31, 2007 11:18 AM

In business consulting circles, people routinely distinguish "leadership" from "management" by saying, "Management is about doing things right; leadership is about doing the right things." Huckabee refuses to tell us what things he would choose to do (i.e. his priorities and goals) and thus is simply refusing to let us judge what kind of leader he would actually be. Instead, he expects us to simply concede the quality of leadership to him. No thanks.

Posted by Karl Weber | December 31, 2007 11:21 AM

That doesn't mean detailed legislative language on every aspect of your agenda, but you need to say something about what your top priorities are and what general direction you want to move in.

Maybe he'll try to make us all fishers of men, and render unto Caesar. Maybe he'll cast out the money lenders, and divide the loaves and fishes. Maybe he'll ride down Pennsylvania Ave. on a donkey in January '09. Oh wait, Jesus "was too smart to run for political office." Or did he just lack the necessary "leadership." But he would want you to vote for his and Chuck Norris' guy. Mike Huckabee: he's ready to do Jesus' dirty work for him.

Posted by Bill | December 31, 2007 11:21 AM

no such thing as generic "leadership"

But if you poll voters, it seems like a great many of them *do* believe in the existence of leadership as some sort of essence that exists independent of any ideology or concrete proposals. So while you may not buy this particular line of bullshit, that doesn't mean it won't sell.

Posted by bbartlog | December 31, 2007 11:38 AM

If you had to choose between candidates who all espoused policies with which you disagreed equally, wouldn't you want the worst leader? That way, fewer of those policies would be implemented.

Posted by Njorl | December 31, 2007 11:42 AM

I forgot to mention, great pic of "The Huckabee Void".

Posted by Njorl | December 31, 2007 11:44 AM

Matt, you're not playing smart. The idea is to let the GOP nominate Huck, then beat him easily in November. Come on!!!

Or as Richard Lowry thought he cleverly said of HoDean, Please Nominate This Man...

Posted by sshhhhhh!!! | December 31, 2007 12:25 PM

I checked out Huck's website a few weeks back, to see what his policy prescriptions were. And indeed, they amount to nothing.

On health care: our health care system is "irrevocably broken," but Huck can fix it, without any of those nasty Federal mandates or higher taxes. Yet, "When I'm President, Americans will have more control of their health care options, not less."

On energy independence: "The first thing I will do as President is send Congress my comprehensive plan for energy independence. We will achieve energy independence by the end of my second term." But not through Federal mandates - he'll let the free market do the job: "windling supplies and increasing demand from newly-industrialized countries of fossil fuels are driving up prices. These price increases will facilitate innovation and the opportunity for independence...Our free market will sort out what makes the most sense economically and will reward consumer preferences." He will budget some Federal R&D money, but still: his 'plan' is basically 'wait until things get worse, then the free market will make it all wonderful.'

And so on. Everything I've heard from him since consists of his being very good at describing our problems and their potential repercussions, followed by free market magic. Like we've been standing in the way of the free market until now.

Posted by low-tech cyclist | December 31, 2007 1:04 PM

Next time you run into that vacuous troglodyte, John Fund, please tell him to go fuck himself, wouldya dear? Of all the self-centered, self-important, self-righteous, and downright dishonest assholes in this world, he ranks near the top...

Posted by Rihilism | December 31, 2007 1:12 PM

Don't you understand? The Huck doesn't need your "qualifications" or "basic understanding of econ 101" or "introductory high school geography textbook". He's got his traditional(white)southernevangelicalChristianvalues and his bible. When he's got questions about taxes or south Asian nuclear policy, he'll consult the Good Book and his gut (maybe call up the Big Guy on his personal prayerline). He doesn't need any of your tehBabyJesus-hating "facts" to get in the way.

Posted by Ben | December 31, 2007 3:03 PM

Don't you understand? The Huck doesn't need your "qualifications" or "basic understanding of econ 101" or "introductory high school geography textbook". He's got his traditional(white)southernevangelicalChristianvalues and his bible. When he's got questions about taxes or south Asian nuclear policy, he'll consult the Good Book and his gut (maybe call up the Big Guy on his personal prayerline). He doesn't need any of your tehBabyJesus-hating "facts" to get in the way.

Huck = the return of W--an "average guy" with no understanding of much of anything who'll serve as the figurehead of an administration run by ghouls.

Posted by Ben | December 31, 2007 3:12 PM