Huckabee Doesn’t Have A Clue What Conservatism Is
No wonder R. Neal was impressed with the following excerpt from an interview with Mike Huckabee. The Huckster is advocating that Republicans become Democrats.
Republicans need to be Republicans. The greatest threat to classic Republicanism is not liberalism; it’s this new brand of libertarianism, which is social liberalism and economic conservatism, but it’s a heartless, callous, soulless type of economic conservatism because it says “look, we want to cut taxes and eliminate government. If it means that elderly people don’t get their Medicare drugs, so be it. If it means little kids go without education and healthcare, so be it.” Well, that might be a quote pure economic conservative message, but it’s not an American message. It doesn’t fly. People aren’t going to buy that, because that’s not the way we are as a people.
Oh God, this makes me so sick. I just puked all over my desk.
He is right about one thing, Republicans need to start being Republicans. Let me re-phrase that. Republicans need to start being conservative.
The only problem is, Huckabee doesn’t have a clue what that means. This so called “new brand of libertarianism” the Huckster speaks of, is actually the same old conservatism practiced and preached by Barry Goldwater, Ronald Reagan, William F. Buckley, and Milton Friedman. THOSE PEOPLE, MR. HUCKABEE, WERE CONSERVATIVES. YOU SIR ARE NOT!
Huckabee, as usual, sounds like a Democrat. Why in the hell doesn’t he just become one? It would certainly make more sense.
Huckabee represents everything that is wrong with the Republican Party today. Rather than proclaiming that government is the problem, not the solution, these new Democrat-lites like Huckabee, believe government is the answer to everything. Like I said, they may as well just switch parties.
Tom Coburn, a true conservative, gets it. We need a Republican takeover of the Republican Party, and “social conservatives” like Huckabee are not the ones to do it. They are the opposite of conservatism. They are not the answer. They are the problem.
You are right about the Huckster…
Buckley? no…
Tom Coburn is better than most, but still votes for Pork, CAFTA and all the Iraq mess.
Compared to other Senators, Coburn is much better than most.
What did you not like about WFB?
Well, it’s good that you’re willing to admit that you don’t care about what the effects of conservative policies on average Americans are.
Seriously, here’s a news flash: An overwhelming majority of Americans are not “conservatives,” as you define the term. People actually like a lot of the stuff government does, including most of the stuff you think it shouldn’t do. You can dismiss that as “evil populism” all you want, but the fact remains that you are decidedly in the minority.
I mean, do you seriously believe that someone who runs a Ron Paul-esque “abolish Social Security, abolish Medicare, abolish the Department of Education, abolish the EPA” platform has a snowball’s chance in hell of winning anything more important than a backwoods county in Montana? Of course not.
Everybody hates paying taxes, but they like stuff that taxes pay for, which is why Republican from Reagan forward have been working so hard to disassociate the two, with supply-side bullshit (the equivalent of “take a pay cut while spending the same or more money”), etc.
Come on, Glen. I beg to differ–not in your criticism of Huckabee, but in the assertion that he represents everything that is wrong with the Republican Party. The right to life is a fundamental right, I’d say . . . and the sanctity of life, the 2nd Amendment, etc. are reasons–not insignificant reasons, that Huckabee and others do not have a home in the Democratic Party.
nedwilliams:
I’m not sure that’s true. The Democrat that just won a solidly GOP seat in a special election in Northern Mississippi is solidly pro-life and pro-gun. Though I will admit that in national politics, being pro-life and pro-gun is pretty much a non-starter for a Democrat. To be fair, though, it’s equally poisonous for a Republican to be pro-choice or pro-gun-control in national politics. So there you have it.
Ned, I am all for the right to life, as long as anti-abortion legislation is done at the state level. The Huckster could care less about federalism. He probably couldn’t even define the term. As for pro-gun, I am sure a good opinion poll could change his mind on that issue. Something about those politicians from Hope Ark. and those opinion polls.
I stand by what I said about Huckabee and have said about him in numerous other posts. He is not conservative, not even close. He is like a seventies Democrat, another Jimmy Carter. Just like Democrats, he believes in using religion to promote forced benevolence and populism. I dislike him even more than I dislike McCain. I could maybe hold my nose and vote for McCain. With Huckabee, there is no way I could do it, and I even like the Fair Tax.
Tgirsch, why do you always have to assign me the extreme position?
Read this, which is my definition of conservatism. All I am basically calling for is a stop in growth and maybe a small decline. I’m not for no government, just less government. Sure people like handouts when they are on the gettin’ end. When I was in college, I liked it when my Mama paid my bills. It didn’t help me much though.
Buckley and Kristol are the Kings of NeoCons.
Glen:
[Threadjack warning]
So do you not want to do away with Medicare, or do you view doing away with Medicare as a “small decline?”
Looking at your definition, it’s frankly too superficial to be useful. One could argue that social security and Medicare are the kind of “redistribution of wealth” that you say is bad (and these two make up close to half of what government does, on a monetary basis), but one could just as easily argue that they exist to protect the citizenry. Is it a hand out, or is it a safety net? Your essay doesn’t say.
As I’ve said many times in the past, I believe in erring on the side of personal liberty, while regulating the Holy Shit out of corporations and organizations, which cannot be trusted to behave altruistically on their own.
Your faith in the “free market” to actually maximize individual freedom is, in my opinion, naive. Unchecked, the free market leads to plutocracy, and that’s not compatible with individual freedom. There’s a whole history of feudalism, robber barons, etc., to back up this assertion.
I have no problem with people making an honest buck, or even people becoming extremely wealthy. I just strongly emphasize the “honest” part of “honest buck,” and I do believe that those who have benefited the most from our society have a greater responsibility to pay for it. It seems pretty uncontroversial to me.
At the end of the day, results matter to me. Any system of governance that results in 1% of the people controlling 90% of the wealth, and the rest fighting for the scraps, strikes me as not a very good one. No, I don’t think everyone should be exactly equal at all times; I’m not a communist. I just don’t think it’s good to get too far to one extreme or the other. If every person truly has a fair chance at success, and every person can afford to make a few mistakes (maybe even major ones) along the way without ending up in ruin, then I think we’re doing a pretty good job. I just don’t think we’re anywhere near there yet. I’m a pragmatist, so I don’t care how we get there. If I thought “classical liberalism” was the best way to get there, I’d be all for it. I oppose it, because I don’t think it works that way. (I oppose unfettered socialism and communism for precisely the same reasons, by the way.)
Getting back to what you wrote here, I don’t think I unfairly assign you to the “extreme” position. I don’t think I’ve ever accused you of holding positions you don’t actually hold, certainly not when you’ve pointed it out. I’m pretty sure you’ve said that you’d like to do away with social security, Medicare, and Medicaid (together, nearly 60% of government spending today). I’d be surprised if you weren’t in favor of eliminating the Department of Labor, the Department of Education, the Department of Health & Human Services, etc. I’d be surprised if you weren’t in favor of Grover Norquist’s “government small enough to drown in a bathtub.” That hardly qualifies as “a stop in growth” or “maybe a small decline.” That’s a radical reduction of government, and I don’t think it’s at all unfair to classify you as supporting this.
(And yes, I see you wrote that you’d settle for “stop[ping] the growth” of the “welfare state,” which presumably means not doing away with social security, but I don’t see how you can stop its growth, while still actually having the benefits be meaningful to their recipients. Even today most would argue that social security alone isn’t really enough to live on.)
Tgirsch,
Capitalists have hijacked the term “modern liberalism” to confuse the ignorant.
The classical liberals would not relate todays speculative capitalism as anything other than organized crime.
oops,
meant to say “classical liberalism”
They’ve hijacked “modern liberalism” too, but in a different light.
No, I don’t want to do away with Medicare. You can’t “do away” with entitlement programs that large and ingrained. You can bitch about the fact that they were started, but they are too ingrained to be gotten rid of.
Nope, nope, nope. Like I said, we can’t do away with them, but we certainly need to address the crisis that all three are in and make difficult choices. Bitching about there existence and doing away with them are not the same. Stopping their growth and doing away with them are not the same. Those programs are here to stay. People were forced to contribute, and they deserve to get those benefits, because of that. Things are what they are and no you can’t, you just can’t eliminate.
Dept. of Education, yes get rid of it. It isn’t needed. Education is a state issue. As for the others, I am sure they could be severely cut, but probably not gotten rid of.
As for what you wrote between those excerpts, let me just say this. A major problem that affected finances in this country is the creation of the Fed. Loose money made a lot of people rich and yes it hurt the little guy. I remember when I was growing up, interest rates were high, but my family owned a good site built house, because home values were low. Now with all of these years of cheap money, real estate is way too high for the little guy to get in. It is still high, btw, in spite of recent adjustments. Now the little guy has to settle for manufactured housing way too often, which as a Realtor that really wants to see people own homes, that really breaks my heart. But the flip side of that is, if you can own a home, a site built home that is, you double your wealth in ten years. The creation of the Fed was bad news. Its another thing though that is here to stay, unfortunately.
This is another hijack alert, but the recent adjustment in home values is a really good thing for folks on the bottom end. Leave it alone, I say.
Glen:
Let me just say that before you get to do any of that, you have to convince other people that it’s a good idea. You try to say that “conservatism” as you define it “wins,” but it really doesn’t. Even the idea of cutting medicare/social security (which, bottom line, is what “stopping its growth” amounts to) isn’t at all popular.
At the end of the day, most people don’t want libertarian governance, at least not on issues like that. What they want is liberal governance. They just want it to be competent, which is another matter.
tgirsch,
Glen knows thats what most people want, that’s why he’s hoping for low voter turnout.
I think if it is sold truthfully, people will choose liberty over government. Yes, everybody wants free stuff, but people also want freedom, at least the ones being robbed do.
I still say small government conservatism is a winner for Republicans. They lose more often when the revert to big government.
This is a center right country Tgirsch. If it isn’t, then why do so many Democrats win elections by convincing the electorate that they are not that liberal, but actually more conservative than the incumbent Republican?
I do like low turnout, btw. It’s populism and demagoguery that I can’t stand.
I think if it is sold truthfully, people will choose liberty over government. Yes, everybody wants free stuff, but people also want freedom, at least the ones being robbed do.
Shorter Glen Dean: “Freedom isn’t free, but why should I have to pay for it, not that I’ve enjoyed it all my life?”
.
See, Glen, that’s the problem. Most people don’t see paying taxes for things like infrastructure and a social safety net as “robbery” or some other infringement upon their freedom. In my experience, the only people who complain about it are the ones arrogant or short-sighted or lucky enough to feel like they themselves will never need any sort of assistance. (Many, myself included, argue that such services could be provided more effectively, and for less money, but that’s another matter.)
Small government conservatism is a winner as long as the scrupulously avoid specifics — just talk about “reducing the size of government” in the abstract, and it’s quite popular. But as soon as you start telling people what, specifically, you intend to cut, they start heading out in droves. (Possible exception: pork projects benefiting other districts, which only make up a tiny percentage of the budget anyway.)
This is a center right country Tgirsch.
It depends on the issue, actually. And it depends on where in the country you’re talking about. As a general rule, liberalism increases as population density increases, and vice versa. This, more than anything else, is why the 2000 and 2004 electoral maps looked the way they did.
small government people must be backward, ignorant, unsophisticated dolts standing on the train tracks of socialism because of their misplaced zeal.
Just because more people “want” it, doesn’t make it the best course of action, and it doesn’t mean we can make it work.
Smaller government= more freedoms Bigger government= less freedoms.
It’s a de facto equation with governments and power.
I’m not suggesting an anarcho-capitalist system run by corporatism. I am suggesting a happy medium, and providing every need for every citizen (and non-citizen), cradle to grave, is not only impossible financially, but unhealthy for the very welfare of humankind.
Cameron:
Just because more people “want” it, doesn’t make it the best course of action
And we liberals are supposed to be the elitists?
Smaller government= more freedoms Bigger government= less freedoms
Zimbabwe has an extremely small government. Do you imagine you’d be more free there than here?
Seriously, though, I think there’s a serious blind eye involved in logic like that. While a poor kid born to a single mother may have every bit as much “freedom” as Warren Buffet’s kid in the abstract, in real life it’s a lot more complicated than that. Your freedoms are only as good as your ability to actually exercise them. For instance, if government funding allows someone to go to college who otherwise couldn’t, then to my mind that creates a lot more freedom and opportunity than that lost by the extra few pennies of taxes that everyone has to pay to support it. I know you’ll never agree with that assessment, but there it is.
i was stating that there is a happy medium. we haven’t found it yet.
Well, the problem is, different people are going to have vastly different ideas of what constitutes a “happy medium.”
exactly, and there the debate lives.