Man Bites Blog

There’s something about Mike Huckabee that brings out the worst in his critics. I can’t think of any other public figure about whom I have heard more posts and columns beginning with something like, “I am by no means a Huckabee fan, but…”

In that vein, I pass along this from Andrew Sullivan:

Huckabee relates the key prudential principle of Christianism. Yes: it’s vertical. When addressing what a polity needs, you just need to ask God. And then we obey. At least now no one will hide it. This dog whistle is loud and public and audible by anyone:

“When we become believers, it’s as if we have signed up to be part of God’s Army, to be soldiers for Christ… When you give yourself to Christ, some relationships have to go. It’s no longer your life; you’ve signed it over.”

Geez — it’s almost like it’s a religion or something.

Sullivan would have us believe that this type of thinking is an innovation of Huckabee and the Christian Right.

The reality is that this is a princliple, not of “Christianism,” but of Christianity itself, at least if its Founder has anything to say about it:

Then Jesus said to his disciples, “Whoever wishes to come after me must deny himself, ²⁰ take up his cross, and follow me.

For whoever wishes to save his life will lose it, but whoever loses his life for my sake will find it.

Maybe this is incompatible with “conservatism,” as Andrew Sullivan might define it. But it is Christianity. The notion that Christianity is something to be compartmentalized and seaparated from one’s public life is antithetical to what Christ preached.

If you have a problem with religion touching all aspects of a believer’s life, then you have a problem with Chritianity, not “Christianism.”

The Club For Growth has spent $550,000 on anti-Huckabee ads in Iowa.

I wonder if they’ll need to raise their dues to pay for all these ads.  Or maybe they can lower their dues, at least as a percentage of income, which will cause economic growt, more income for their members, and ultimately more revenue for the Club generated by the lower dues.

Mark R. Levin challenges those who think Huckabee is a good choice for pro-lifers to “explain how Huckabee’s views on abortion and same-sex marriage differ from Thompson’s and Romney’s.”

Well, Huckabee never ran for office touting himself as to the left on Teddy Kennedy on abortion.  He never worked as a lobbyist for pro-choice organizations.  He didn’t go on Meet the Press and talk about how he wouldn’t want to send doctors to jail. 

Also, when he talks about thing like abortion, he doesn’t look like he’d rather be passing a kidney stone.

Plus, he’s against torture and waterboarding, which positions him better to advocate for life.

There seems to be this notion that George W. Bush is the absolute standard against which the pro-life credentials of cadidates should be measured.  But last time I looked, there hasn’t been a decrease in abortions under Bush, nor any meaningful restrictions or changes to the cultural landscape.  So, given the open field, I’m hoping for something better.

I know a million lives a year is a piddling thing compared to the need to keep the winning coalition together and beat Hillary, but that’s where we are.

The current meme on the Corner seems to be that it’s bad to support Huckabee because he’s a threat to the “winning coalition” that has won seven of the last ten presidential elections.

To which I reply, winning coalition for whom?

Hey, I like backing a winner as much as anybody.  But if abortion’s my issue, the fact remains that there are just as many abortions now as there were before George W. Bush took office.  Bush has not done anything to change the cultural landscape to make it less friendly to abortion; on the contrary, he has made it moreso with his creating legal space for torture and preemptive war.  Most of the party leadership seemed to be fine with having a pro-choice, pro-torture candidate as the nominee.

If your issue is bombing Arab countries or lowering taxes, then the current coalition is great.  But if your issue is a culture of life in general and abortion in particular, then what’s in it for you?

The “winning coalition” is dead.  Nominating someone like Romney who panders to everybody isn’t going to change that.   Shooting the messenger Huckabee isn’t going to change that.  This is the new reality.  Deal with it.

As the Corner debates how mean they should be to Mike Huckabee, I think it’s interesting to contrast the conversation with the conversation that ocurred as it became clear that Rudy Giuliani was going to run for the Republican nomination as a pro-choice candidate.

I don’t recall the intensely personal, condescending attacks against Giuliani.  I recall considerable debate in finding exactly what Giuliani’s views were, and people expressing the opinion that they were unacceptable.  But I don’t remember the sarcasm, criticizing his college, etc. 

Further, with Huckabee now, I don’t see any current of, “shut up about your complaints and get behind a winner — you don’t want Hillary, do you?” sentiment that was prevalent back then.  It doesn’t seem to matter that Huckabee is the one candidate able to generate any excitement.   He once raised taxes, he’s said some non-mean things about children of illegal immigrants; he’s embarassing; he has to go.

Just another illustration of what’s important to the GOP versus what they say is important.

Ross Douthat echoes JohnMcG.

I think the Huckabee boom is a baklash to the GOP’s efforts to marinalize and scapegoat social conservatives.  They gave us eight years of half-measures under George W. Bush .  They tried to force Giuliani on us.  They tried to pass Mitt Romney off on us. 

And we said, “Fine — we’ll back this Southern Baptist preacher who doesn’t believe in evolution.  Now try selling your notion that social conservatives are an electoral liability!”

I don’t think Huckabee would make a great president, but I do enjoy watching him make the GOP take social conservatism seriously.