Huckabee’s “hope” is a “nope”
January 31st, 2008 by Matt HittleHere’s an op-ed I published in my school’s newspaper yesterday.
—–
It all began in a place called Hope.
No, I’m not referring to that classic line by a certain incorrigible former president; rather, a guy who really wants Clinton’s old gig.
Mike Huckabee was born and raised in the same small burg - Hope, Arkansas - as our beloved William Jefferson Clinton, albeit after Bill left town. Like the former President, Mike’s got that Arkansas drawl, an innate charm and a rapier wit. The similarities don’t end there. Huckabee also shares with Democrats his views on the economy and some social issues.
In fact, the only way I can tell Huck is a Republican is the (R) behind his name. His lip service to less government spending and lower taxes belie his actual Arkansas gubernatorial history. What’s worse, he openly champions the populism that is now in vogue in American politics. It’s the Mike Huckabee and John Edwards duet: everyone gets something for nothing.
If Huck doesn’t support Republican values like limited government and fiscal responsibility, why is he so popular? The answer is simple: Huckabee’s down-home attitude combined with his ministerial background attracts wandering Christian evangelicals. Brought into the G.O.P. coalition by Reagan, these political nomads want to further their Christian beliefs through big government and bloated social programs. I call them liberals who found Jesus. They don’t like the direction in which the G.O.P. is going, but they can’t go Democratic because of abortion and religious issues. Instead, they stay Republican, hoping to influence the Party with a religious ardor sometimes bordering on fanaticism. So far, sadly, it has worked. The Iowa caucuses were a perfect example.
While other Republican candidates forsake this religious zealotry, instead invoking the divine supply-side economics of Saint Reagan, Huck goes a different route. He’s received F’s from the Cato Institute due to his taxing and spending policies while governor. Conservative group Judicial Watch ranked him among the 10 most corrupt American politicians of 2007. Most disturbingly, however, is his oft-proclaimed desire to “take this nation back for Christ.”
Don’t misunderstand, I’m Catholic and don’t begrudge Huckabee his religious views. He has as much freedom to invoke Jesus as other politicians. However, while religion may be used as a guide for policy, it shouldn’t be used as a strict blueprint. The Reagan-era coalition is splitting and we must actively choose between evangelical Christianity, embodied by Huckabee, and the fiscal conservatism represented by Romney and McCain. Essentially, the nominee for 2008 will set the tone of the party’s policy for decades to come. Our nominee will be a symbol for the political path we want to travel. If we choose Huckabee, that path can only be fraught with bigger government and evangelical Christian nanny-state policies.
I’m not officially endorsing anyone at this point. I am, however, un-endorsing Huckabee. A vote for Huck is a vote for more of the same; higher taxes, ineffectual social policies, and a general populist class warfare malaise.
January 31st, 2008 at 11:48 am
I agree with you to an extent. I just wanted to say that not all Christian Evangelicals agree with Mike Huckabee. Some Christians actually want to use limited government to their Christian Faith’s advantage. I’m one of those limited government Christians. So please don’t lump all Christians with Mike Huckabee.
January 31st, 2008 at 11:50 am
I’m a FredHead, and I believe the Republicans, Conservatives, and Christians just screwed their chances at keep the White House by not voting for Fred Thompson.
That’s my prediction. We’ll see if I’m right.
January 31st, 2008 at 12:29 pm
I agree that Huck was the worst case scenario in the evolution of the Republican Party away from its fiscally conservative roots. In the campaign, he was a strong communicator among a relatively weak field and had the momentum at one point. Thanks to organizations like FreedomWorks, and especially The Club for Growth his abysmal fiscal record was exposed. Also, I think his “take back this nation for Christ” quote did him in with secular conservatives, just as he was changing his rhetoric to appeal to them.
I’d like to say that I’m a secular conservative (at least politically) and welcome evangelicals who share the values of limited government and conservative tax and spending policy.
March 4th, 2008 at 3:19 am
WHY ? Why is it acceptable for a WICCAN, Bhuddist. even a Satanist today and especially, or gracious, do not offend a Muslim, to openly and loudly proclaim their faith, but by any god, a Christian better not even look at a cross, a Bible, or any other artifact of their faith? And mention their faith in a public forum? God forbid! Today, that’s virtually burning at the stake time. If you look carefully Huckabee’s tax measures were on the heels of garbage Clinton(s) left behind. Sound familiar? Huckabee made some strong stements in his campaign. So what? That’s what it takes to be elected. Obama is promising change like a modern day Messiah. And Hillary is promising change based on the same old rhetoric. Honsetly, neither can deliver. Obama ain’t God, neither is he Jesus. And Hillary is only going to let Bill back into the playground thereby tieing her own hands. Paul, Thompson, Giulliani, and the rest were nothing more than throwing drops of cold water into a frying pan of hot oil. Splatters, splutters, sizzles and pops. A whole lot of noise, no substance, and over in a few minutes. You holler about religion. Romney had the backing of the entire Mormon church, who told him what, when and how to, “do it.” When (and if) McCain gets the nod, it’ll be McCain and Huckabee or McCain and Romney because McCain does and will need someone to bring in the Religious Right. Who by the way are not “idits out wandering aimlessly.” But are people in search of genuine leadership as demonstrated by Reagan. Catholic huh? Figures….