Mike Huckabee denounces libertarianism as a "heartless, callous, soulless type of economic conservatism" that poses "the greatest threat to classic Republicanism" and is "not an American message." Justin Logan blows a gasket. I, personally, am greatly looking forward to the infighting that will occur in the right-of-center camp if McCain loses.
« More Words From Matt | Main | Pressure from Corporate Executives »
Huckabee Versus Freedom
29 May 2008 01:12 pm
Comments (67)
Well, Huckabee is only partly right. Libertarianism *is* a heartless, callous, soulless type of economic conservatism, but that's what makes it a uniquely American message.
And it poses no threat at all to classic Republicanism.
Someday, advertising one’s own ignorance about the world won’t be considered a mark in one’s favor by conservatives.
Blows a gasket, indeed. Pretty enjoyable.
Mike Huckabee is the future of the Republican party.
The marriage between evangelicals and neoliberals never made a ton of sense - in great part, it's a function of the anti-communism of the religious right in the first half of the century. With the death of communism, I think we'll see a massive realignment in the evangelical community on issues of economics. It takes a generation or so to make these sorts of shifts happen, but I think it's pretty inevitable.
Logan is raging against the dying of the light - the electoral base that made economic conservatism viable is going to be gone within a decade.
Awesome.
HR, what's your point besides being annoying with irrelevant bullshit?
The least you can do is post this in primary-related threads. The best you can do is take your weak-ass game over to TalkLeft.
hmmm...a party divided over policy, or one divided over Cult of Personality? which would you prefer?
This is an awesome development. Clearly a direct pitch to be tagged for McCain's VP slot, now that Barr is looking to be a serious drain in Nov.
But one bone I've got to pick with you here, Matt, is that we left-of-centers need to start amping up the complacency and cockiness. No more "if John McCain loses" speech; we all know how this election's gonna play out. John McCain is gonna go down in a ball of hell-fire, and how silly are we gonna look if the historical record shows us taking this lunatic seriously?
We all know this election's going to be a cake-walk; shouldn't our vocabulary reflect that?
Only half-kidding.
Sandy
I agree with Huck. I'm voting for Obama, but I love Huckabee, he's such a breath of fresh air compared to the Dobsons and Pat Robertson's of the past. To me, he is the perfect representative of the small-town values pastor who's more focused on community-building and counseling than culture war idiocy.
Re Sandy's comment "No more "if John McCain loses" speech; we all know how this election's gonna play out. John McCain is gonna go down in a ball of hell-fire"
-------------
BUT if Matthew SAYS that John McCain is gonna lose, then the infamous "Yglesias Jinx" kicks in and McCain wins by a landslide.
that poses "the greatest threat to classic Republicanism"
Then I guess classic Republicanism can rest easy - if anyone's read the awesome reports from this year's Libertarian Party convention.
There are some really bright and interesting Libertarians - but they are surrounded by certifiable nutjobs.
xoxohth writes: "I love Huckabee, he's such a breath of fresh air compared to the Dobsons and Pat Robertson's of the past. To me, he is the perfect representative of the small-town values pastor who's more focused on community-building and counseling than culture war idiocy."
In fact Huckabee is a veteran culture warrior and a Robertson-level asshole who wrote this swill in his book "Kids Who Kill":
"Despite all our prosperity, pomp, and power, the vaunted American experiment in liberty seems to be disintegrating before our very eyes. ...
Abortion, environmentalism, AIDS, pornography, drug abuse, and homosexual activism have fragmented and polarized our communities. ...
It is now difficult to keep track of the vast array of publicly endorsed and institutionally supported aberrations - from homosexuality and pedophilia to sadomasochism and necrophilia."
I hope the Huckster is the future of the GOP, because that will help kill off the party of Saint Reagan and Dumbya quicker than anything else could.
SoCalJustice, if so many of them are nutjobs, why did they nominate Bob Barr? Why didn't some 9/11 Truther win the nomination?
too many steves, you don't think Bobb Barr is a nutjob?
The fact that "some 9/11 truther" is even in the conversation here furthers the point.
hmmm...a party divided over policy, or one divided over Cult of Personality? which would you prefer?
Well, if you're a Republican, you don't have to choose.
There are some really bright and interesting Libertarians - but they are surrounded by certifiable nutjobs. - SoCalJustice
How are bright and interesting and certifiable nutjob mutually exclusive? ;)
No, I don't think Bob Barr is a nutjob. He's about the most mainstream guy the libertarians could possibly nominate. I don't agree with a lot of his positions, but he's certainly not a nutjob, unless you think being a libertarian automatically makes you a nutjob. Barr is far more moderate than Ron Paul.
I brought up "some 9/11 Truther" because I figured that's what you were referring to when you mentioned reading about the wackos at the Libertarian convention.
I can't remember where I read this, but I think it's wise: the core of every party is made up of irrational and insane people. The Libertarians just look worse because the party is smaller and the core is just about all there is.
1) Alas, I fear we will never return to the days after the Goldwater meltdown --when the Chairman of the John Birch Society was driving William F Buckley into a carpet-chewing fury by publicly suggesting that Republican President Dwight Eisenhower was a Communist agent. hee hee hee
See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Birch_Society#Robert_Welch_and_The_Politician
2) Strangely enough, the next Chairman of the John Birch Society was on the KAL-007 airliner shot down by the Soviet Union in 1983. Which shows that even "paranoid idiots" sometimes have real enemies.
[Banjo Playing]
"Oh, if Mommie is a Commie, you've got to turn her in"
I don't think being a libertarian makes you automatically a nutjob, which is why I said there are some bright and interesting ones surrounded by nutjobs. I like reading Reason's blog and occassionaly some stuff from a handful of the CATO guys.
And I hope Barr ends up being a drag on the McCain candidacy the way Nader was on Gore, but I just don't see it.
It's nice to see the LP attempt to go "mainstream," with Barr I guess - but there's very little growth potential there. The whole exercise is kind of a joke and Barr is a longstanding Republican who was described as "the idol of the gun-toting, abortion-fighting, IRS-hating hard right wing of American politics." I just don't see this "move" as a threat to anyone or anything.
DAS: How are bright and interesting and certifiable nutjob mutually exclusive? ;)
A fair point.
Ricky Martin has endorsed Senator Clinton:
http://afp.google.com/article/ALeqM5hMKH-aRkIczSfhvhikSv0-VTvjoQ
Obviously he sees something you clowns don't.
Tim K,
Who did the rest of Menudo endorse?
Re Tim k's Comment "Ricky Martin has endorsed Senator Clinton"
---------
What I see is one 1990s has-been showing solidarity with another.
"With the death of communism, I think we'll see a massive realignment in the evangelical community on issues of economics."
For that community, Communism never died. It just wears a burqa now.
For that community, Communism never died. It just wears a burqa now.
Which would suggest that taking stances on economic issues due to this cultural aversion to the Other doesn't make a lot of sense anymore. Which is my point.
I'm not saying that Mike Huckabee isn't a pretty crazy reactionary on a lot of issues, or that his cultural conservative base doesn't contain lots of crazy and crazier reactionaries.
I'm saying that the animus toward social democracy among the cultural right is clearly decreasing quickly, in great part due to the death of the Soviet Union and the dismantling of communism as an actually existing thing. Mike Huckabee is opening the door for economically liberal and socially conservative leaders and voters to push the economic conservatives out of the Republican party, or at least break their iron grip on power.
"Ricky Martin has endorsed Senator Clinton:
http://afp.google.com/article/ALeqM5hMKH-aRkIczSfhvhikSv0-VTvjoQ
Obviously he sees something you clowns don't."
Well Hillary has been livin' la vida loca, I'll give her her that.
Who did the rest of Menudo endorse?
I'm a HUGE Menudo fan! How did you know?
Re Tim K's comment " Ricky Martin has endorsed Senator Clinton ...Obviously he sees something you clowns don't"
------------
Rupert Murdoch is indicating that he may endorse Senator Obama. Obviously he sees something clown Tim K doesn't. Like an Obama landslide.
Christian-democracy (Euro-style) is on the march. Though if the evangelicals are supporting it perhaps it's more of a Latin American style. MLaJ seems to be underestimating the political power of a social conservative/fiscal liberal configuration.
MLaJ seems to be underestimating the political power of a social conservative/fiscal liberal configuration.
Shall we also pretend it's 1998 rather than 2008?
I don't agree with a lot of his [Barr's] positions, but he's certainly not a nutjob, unless you think being a libertarian automatically makes you a nutjob.
Well, a libertarian who spearheads a movement to have a sitting president impeached because of oral sex does seem to approach nutjob territory.
[i]Shall we also pretend it's 1998 rather than 2008?[/i]
If Hillary can, why not?
The socon/econlib combination (aka Christian Democracy or Heath-style Toryism) scares the hell out of me precisely because it could be popular and recognizes no limits at all on the power of the government -- absolutely everything ought to be controlled or regulated by the government.
I don't think that the Huckabee wing of the Republicans has a whole lot going for it. Yes, it's a big chunk of the American population, but it's not a majority, and I don't see where it pulls an alliance that lets it win nationally.
The rich/fiscal conservatives/libertarians are the traditional ally, but we're assuming here that that coalition blows apart.
Who do they get to replace the fiscal conservatives? Young liberal urbanites like Matt who like Huckabees economic issues while disliking his social attitude? I don't think so. The Huckabee wing sees (probably correctly) contempt from the liberal urban elite, and won't stay in bed with them.
Blacks, who might be fiscally liberal/socially conservative in a lot of ways? Not if Obama is president.
Latinos are a possibility, but immigration issues are a sticking point, here.
The general mass of centrist/undecided voters? I don't think so. Huckabee is an extremist. He's an extremist in two different directions, and that can look moderate, but up close, any moderate is going to find something to dislike about strong social conservatism combined with relatively strong economic liberalism.
If Hillary can, why not?
Perhaps... but if true, it hasn't worked out too well for her either.
You, of course, are free to continue to dream of the days of the Iron Chancellor.
Quietus writes: "Christian-democracy (Euro-style) is on the march. Though if the evangelicals are supporting it perhaps it's more of a Latin American style. MLaJ seems to be underestimating the political power of a social conservative/fiscal liberal configuration."
I don't think I am - at least not in this country, not yet. We won't get to that point unless there's a protracted and painful economic disaster.
Which could happen... but for now the fundies aren't hurting badly enough to let go of their various stupidities.
If Hillary can, why not?
Perhaps... but if true, it hasn't worked out too well for her either.
You, of course, are free to continue to dream of the days of the Iron Chancellor.
A Konrad Adenauer or Alcide De Gasperi is enough, thank you, SavageView. Bismarck wasn't exactly a great friend to the liberal CD's at the time, anyways.
A Konrad Adenauer or Alcide De Gasperi is enough, thank you, SavageView. Bismarck wasn't exactly a great friend to the liberal CD's at the time, anyways.
Big Business, Big Religion, and Big Government... yum. Soon we'll be able to put together a Star Fleet and begin exploring the universe.
" . . . if McCain loses" - don't you mean "when"?
Assess the impact Bob Barr will have on the election in GA alone and you can see that the Libertarian Party is going to play in this election like they never have before. What if Ron Paul comes over as the VP or if his supporters migrate over to the Libertarian ticket anyway?
This election could be the end of the Republican Party, with the economic conservatives going Libertarian and the religious conservatives either fully taking it over or forming their own party - which, of course, will be dedicated to bringing about Armageddon.
Everyone talks about how Huckabee's this big scary Christian conservative, but those are just checklist items. Newsflash: John McCain is against abortion too, as a party thing, but truth is he doesn't give a shit about the issue.
Huckabee has moved past the old abortion wave-the-red-flag that Dobson or Robertson did. He tells people that if they are against abortion, they should also be against poor people starving overseas. And, as a matter of fact, the old establishment Christian right hates Huckabee.
The way that he spoke about immigration, where he speaks about compassion for immigrants, when the rest of the GOP was demonizing them, really made him shine in my eyes. As Frank Rich put it, he's more Christian than the rest in an ethical sense, not a theological sense.
Assess the impact Bob Barr will have on the election in GA alone
What impact is that going to be?
You think McCain is going to lose Georgia?
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/georgia.html
He has a double digit lead there.
and you can see that the Libertarian Party is going to play in this election like they never have before
Which is not really saying that much when you think about it. No offense to them.
I think one simple way to view it is to expand into 4 left right groupings for economics and social policy instead of two, that gives you this matrix of possibilities:
Extremely Social Liberal/Extremely Economically liberal: probably Green or other, vote Dem
Extremely Social Liberal/Moderate Economic liberal: Classic coastal elite Dem and former Rockefeller Republicans
Moderate Social Liberal/Extremely Economic Liberal: Classic Midwestern populist Dems.
Moderate Social Liberal/Moderate Economic Liberal: A big chunk of Dems, probably most.
Moderate Social Liberal/Moderate Economic Conservative: Rep but trending Dem
Moderate Social Liberal/Extremely Economic Conservative: Suburban/Main St/Chamber of Commerce Reps
Extremely Social Conservative/Extremely Economic Conservative: The modern Southern Republican Party (the die hards)
Extremely Social Conservative/Moderate Economic Conservative or Liberal: Really not enough difference on economics to separate these groups. I think the only distinction is mostly regional and has to do with attitudes towards unions. In the North these groups were unionized in the south they weren’t and anti union rhetoric worked on them. They think they are fiscally conservative, but if you check the programs they support they are mainstream liberal Dems on economics, they just don’t call it liberal. Classic Reagan Dems. I think this is the group that votes for Rep as president while happily sending Dems to Congress. Until Falwell et al came along to tell them they were conservative Republicans this is where most Evangelicals fell, Huckabee is really a return to their roots not something new.
Moderate Social Conservative/Moderate Economic Conservative or liberal: Swing voters, this is the group I think goes back and forth the most. Your classic suburban upper middle class voters.
xoxohth insists: "The way that he spoke about immigration, where he speaks about compassion for immigrants, when the rest of the GOP was demonizing them, really made him shine in my eyes. As Frank Rich put it, he's more Christian than the rest in an ethical sense, not a theological sense."
Unfortunately he's also a fundamentalist throwback in an intellectual sense, which makes him wholly unsuitable for the office as far as I'm concerned.
Let's return to Huckster's bullshit in the words your "savior" gave us: "It is now difficult to keep track of the vast array of publicly endorsed and institutionally supported aberrations - from homosexuality and pedophilia to sadomasochism and necrophilia."
He's a humongous moron and unworthy of support from any rational human beings. And sure, he'd be better than Dumbya, but that's the lowest standard imaginable.
SoCalJustice,
McCain doesn't have to lose Georgia for Barr to hurt him there. If Barr can force McCain to compete in Georgia, it will make McCain spend money there that he then won't be able to spend in swing states. That's what Nader did to Gore in some states in 2000.
"Well, a libertarian who spearheads a movement to have a sitting president impeached because of oral sex does seem to approach nutjob territory."
Yes, that makes it rather fortunate that they nominated Barr, instead.
Unfortunately he's also a fundamentalist throwback in an intellectual sense, which makes him wholly unsuitable for the office as far as I'm concerned.
That may well be, but remember that a considerable minority, if not outright majority, of the electorate does not have the lofty standards you profess, MLaJ.
He's a humongous moron and unworthy of support from any rational human beings. And sure, he'd be better than Dumbya, but that's the lowest standard imaginable.
And I doubt that he is the last prominent American politician with soc-con/fis-lib tendencies. He's probably a sign of what it is to come out of the evangelical movement more than anything. Smoke before the fire, my good man.
Bellmore true to form is comepletely full of shit:
From Barr's Wikipedia entry:
Barr is best known for his role as one of the House managers during the Clinton impeachment trial. It was Barr who first introduced a resolution directing Judiciary Committee to inquire into impeachment proceedings
Yeah, but he did it on the basis of perjury and obstruction of justice, not oral sex. So Barr doesn't fit the description.
Just because Democrats want to pretend the impeachment was about oral sex, doesn't mean everybody else is obligated to humor them.
Quietus writes: "And I doubt that he is the last prominent American politician with soc-con/fis-lib tendencies. He's probably a sign of what it is to come out of the evangelical movement more than anything. Smoke before the fire, my good man."
But how do you see the country getting to the point where that alliance becomes strong enough to matter? And where's the money going to come from to fund the potential candidate? Huckabee was cash-strapped all the way.
I don't think social conservatives are bright enough to make that move absent (as I said above) an economic disaster (perhaps another depression) that makes their daily plight more real to them than their demented fantasies are.
And just becasue Ass holes like Brett Bellmore want to pretend it was about Perjury doesn't mean we will let them get away with it. The perjury was about Oral Sex in testimony that he should never have been forced to give.
How could evangelical Christian Democrat types be the future of the Republican party? The moneyed classes are in the driver's seat -- the cultural conservatives get to make suggestions which are occasionally humored to keep them in the base, but they can't just get the Scaifes, Olins, Bradleys, etc of the party to concede on economic issues for the sake of retaining their economic support. That would be destroying the plutocracy to save it -- and although that may be the logic of imperial wars so beloved in the right, it's never logic they'd use with regard to their own movement.
What if Ron Paul comes over as the VP or if his supporters migrate over to the Libertarian ticket anyway?
The Libertarians already have a VP candidate, Wayne Allyn Root, whom they nominated at their convention along with Barr.
A Ron Paul third-party run would be delicious to watch as he pulls votes away from McCain, but he wants to keep his Congressional seat as a Republican.
Whoops. I mean "... for the sake of retaining their electoral support." Not economic support.
Multi-party politics, anyone?
The Huck/Cato argument really sets up a splintering into a German-style Social Democrat / Christian Democrat / Free Democrat polity, possibly with room on the left for a Green-style party.
You think McCain is going to lose Georgia?
I think he'll have to compete there. Obama's voter registration drive is putting a lot of resources into GA, because there are an estimated 600,000 African-Americans in the state who aren't registered. Get a quarter of them signed up, your 'likely voter' model goes out of the window, and the GA GOP starts shitting itself.
But how do you see the country getting to the point where that alliance becomes strong enough to matter? And where's the money going to come from to fund the potential candidate? Huckabee was cash-strapped all the way.
I don't know nor do I presume to know enough to guess. But I'm just saying that if a sizeable faction of the Republicans/American conservatism (evangelicals/soc-cons) is moving in a different direction (towards fiscal/economic liberalism), then it's definitely going to bring about some sort of change. Who knew what the Religious Right were going to do before they got added into the Reagan coalition?
I don't think social conservatives are bright enough to make that move absent (as I said above) an economic disaster (perhaps another depression) that makes their daily plight more real to them than their demented fantasies are.
I think that the Reagan Coalition (not to mention the Democratic McGovern Coalition) are slowly falling into pieces, and those pieces will change in unpredictable ways over the next few decades. A severe economic depression isn't necessary for that to happen. But that's just me.
As for Huckabee himself, I certainly think he's preferable to the odious Bushian movement conservatives of George Allen, Tom DeLay, Bill Frist, Santorum, and the like. And I'm not so afraid of him becoming president- perhaps he'll become chair of the RNC, like what happened to Dean after 2004. That's mildly less implausible than the moneyed classes allowing him to become their nominee in 2012.
If there were more than about 6000 Libertarians, this would matter.
Re: I don't think social conservatives are bright enough to make that move absent (as I said above) an economic disaster
The rank and file probably would, but the leadership is another matter. Guys like Dobson and Robertson are CEOs of corporate empires and are personally worth millions. Is it that hard to see the reason for the Religious Right's embrace of rightwing economics?
Quietus replies: "As for Huckabee himself, I certainly think he's preferable to the odious Bushian movement conservatives of George Allen, Tom DeLay, Bill Frist, Santorum, and the like. And I'm not so afraid of him becoming president- perhaps he'll become chair of the RNC, like what happened to Dean after 2004. That's mildly less implausible than the moneyed classes allowing him to become their nominee in 2012."
I agree with most of that, but then again who knew that McCain would spend the 7 years after his defeat in 2000 doing his best to suck up to the Bushpigs and the theocons? I didn't see that coming.
"I think that the Reagan Coalition (not to mention the Democratic McGovern Coalition) are slowly falling into pieces, and those pieces will change in unpredictable ways over the next few decades. A severe economic depression isn't necessary for that to happen."
The old Reagan Democrats are dying off and you can't assume that such ephemeral groups are always there, waiting to be woken up again. And the 70s were a time of economic privation in a lot of ways - Reagan came along and exploited that, along with pushing the buttons of racist oldsters who just aren't as numerous as they were then.
Libertarianism has one flaw as an ideology. It's an ideology.
Ideology is anti American by the way. Communism was anti American by being an ideology and so is libertarianism. The latter it must be said is perhaps the simplest and most logically coherent and consistent ideology every conceived but still it stands zero chance of operating as a political system. For ideology always fails to account for human nature.
I'll consider embracing a Libertarian party if it adopts as it's first principal the elimination of corporations. For Libertarianism is based upon individualism yet corporations are hierarchical organizations created by government, legal constructs, which are based upon limiting individual liability which is the antithesis of individualism.
A couple quick comments:
First, I think libertarian-minded people (as opposed to full on Libertarians with a capital L) can be valuable members of either left or right coalitions. Basically, they are just skeptics about government, and it is not a bad idea to subject government to some healthy skepticism.
Second, I think any political coalition identified in part as being "socially conservative", where "social conservatism" is defined in terms of specific things like opposition to gay marriage, medical marijuana, and so on, is doomed to long run minority status. That is because the youngest cohorts today, and very likely the future cohorts to follow, won't supply enough people for such a coalition to be viable.
That said, there will undoubtedly be a viable conservative coalition in the future, and it will probably even be "socially conservative" in the relative sense, meaning it will take the more "conservative" position on the social issues of the future. But again, in order for that conservative coalition to be viable, those social issues will have to be something other than the issues social conservatives have been championing in the late 20th and early 21st centuries.
However wrong he is about religious influence in the society, Huckabee is definitely right on this issue. Libertarianism is inherently flawed because it fails to recognize the truth that we're all a product of our genes and environment. So the right thing to do is to make the government a positive environmental influence on our lifes. Freedom is still a good thing, because most decisions are best made by ourselves, but sometimes, some of us need the government to help us, and that's what libertarians fail to recognize.
"Libertarianism is inherently flawed because it fails to recognize the truth that we're all a product of our genes and environment."
I was active in the LP from the late 70's until the late 90's, and I can honestly say that I never encountered anyone who showed signs of failing to recognize that. Perhaps by "recognize" you mean, "agree with me as to the implications of"?
I mean, it's hard to be a libertarian and still embrace the complete opposite "philosophy" (which in my view is merely the truth). If you know that you don't have a free will, how can you say that everyone should be left to themselves to try and get a good life? Then you are basically just accepting that someone has been unlucky with genes and environment, instead of helping them with the government by making positive environmental influences. Also, how can you not want to ban stuff that has is a bad environmental influence in all cases, like, example, cannabis?
I mean, it's hard to be a libertarian and still embrace the complete opposite "philosophy" (determinism, which in my view is merely the truth). If you know that you don't have a free will, how can you say that everyone should be left to themselves to try and get a good life? Then you are basically just accepting that someone has been unlucky with genes and environment, instead of helping them with the government by making positive environmental influences. Also, how can you not want to ban stuff that has is a bad environmental influence in all cases, like, example, cannabis?
Comments closed June 12, 2008.
| 
Heads in the Sand
*pops popcorn*
Posted by goethean | May 29, 2008 1:32 PM