Just as it seemed that religious conservatives might be abandoning Mitt Romney in favor of Fred Thompson, the latter was hit with revelations that he once lobbied on behalf of an abortion-rights group. As the LA Times article notes, Thompson, despite his anti-choice voting record in the Senate, is not entirely trusted by anti-abortion activists, and the latest allegations certainly won’t help him.
But what about the real social conservatives in the race? Sam Brownback has been hanging in there, and may be positioned to pick up support as fundamentalists grow increasingly frustrated with the frontrunners. He’s still distinctly second-tier, but his campaign has just announced that 50 influential Iowa religious conservatives will be organizing on his behalf, which should give him a useful boost.
Then there’s Mike Huckabee. The former Arkansas governor is easily the most politically talented candidate in the GOP field, but despite strong showings in the debates, he has failed to gain traction in the race. His first-quarter fundraising was abysmal; he has been saying for some time that a poor showing in the Iowa straw poll would be enough to push him out of the race. While he has expressed a “strong committment” to competing at Ames, and recently told a blogger conference call that his Q2 fundraising numbers would show improvement over his previous performance, it’s still remarkable how such a skilled campaigner could do so poorly.
One of Huckabee’s major problems has been push-back from fiscal conservatives who have attacked him for having raised taxes in Arkansas. The Club for Growth may have destroyed his candidacy several months ago with a particularly harsh assault. Meanwhile, Christian right luminaries have been casting around for an “electable” social conservative candidate; what’s particularly interesting is how the bounds of “electability” in this case may have been set by one faction of the right, forcing the social conservatives to abandon their natural candidates.
All to the detriment of the right. Huckabee’s fundraising skills may be mediocre, but as a politician he represents what would be a promising direction for conservative politics (except for his bizarre advocacy of a national sales tax). Like most Americans, he holds to a more expansionist understanding of what government can do than does Grover Norquist; at the same time, he has been working to expand the appeal of his evangelical politics by talking about issues like health, the environment, and energy independence. Such concerns, combined with his tax record, undoubtedly strike many conservative elites as just another iteration of the hated “big-government conservatism” of the Bush administration. Those elites have managed to define the most electable social conservative candidate as “unelectable.” That’s an impressive accomplishment, and it’s good for Brownback, good for Thompson, and ultimately good for Democrats.
4 Responses to “What’s Up with the Social Conservatives?”
Oh, come now! Huckabee’s backing of the FairTax is BIZARRE?? I think now. What I find truly bizarre are people like you representing yourself as a “true patriot” at the expense of the FairTax.
“True patriots,” like you, rail against the FairTax plan (which becomes a de facto defense of the INCOME TAX), because they apparently believe:
• Workers love having their pay confiscated, hourly, through gov’t withholding and don’t mind getting their money back by involuntary servitude – to the tune of 50 hours/year (on average) – preparing an annual tax return
• It’s better to have theIRS fishing through citizens’ income transactions (complete with audits, interest, penalties, and threats against individuals and families as well as confiscation of their homes and bank accounts) rather than – Gawd forbid – issue a gov’t check to an individual (while pretending that Social Security payments disbursement logistics really can’t work for “prebates”)
• A “true patriot” doesn’t challenge the tax system with a workable alternative like the FairTax that fixes only some problems, they want it ALL fixed – now
• A “true patriot” doesn’t get up off his/her duff to actually do something to effect constructive change, they just sit around blogging and complaining about government spending – and critiquing workable alternatives (like the FairTax plan, for example)
• “Hidden taxes” in higher prices are fine, because they’re not “taxes” (hey, forget that families are really paying business’s costs for complying with a business income tax)
• Only lobbyists, special interests, and business deserve “handouts” (the politician gets a payoff from a lobbyist, the lobbyist gets a payoff from its client, and the citizen gets higher taxes and/or prices that pay for it all)
• It’s far better to have a gargantuan tax collection “service” in Washington, than to have 50 decentralized, smaller, leaner state collection agencies collecting taxes from fewer sources
• That certifying the number of persons in your family (annually, and, ancillarily, upon change in household) is an abrogation of our freedom – more intrusive and complex than filing a tax return every year subject to threats and intimidation by theIRS.
I’m certainly glad that there are “true patriots” like you – out there blogging – to help bring real “change” to America (via the coffers of theIRS).
( Demand TRUE tax reform of your representatives in Congress: http://snipr.com/scrapthecode )
[...] What’s Up with the Social Conservatives? [...]
[...] after Huckabee again. Seems they really don’t like him. Huckabee is still hurting from his earlier beating at the Club’s hands; his subsequent efforts (somewhat spotty, admittedly) to make nice with [...]
Something to say?
It might be possible for a Conservative to be elected Pesident with a promise to shrink government & budget – but would it be possible for such a President to KEEP the promise?
I doubt it.
And each candidate ought to be challenged with this doubt:
There is, on one hand, Congress, and the President may fall prey to the pork factory.
There is, second, the bureaucracy, which may start a tricky fight to save its realm.
Most of all third, there are THE PEOPLE. They might say one day (they do not yet say it right now, I suppose!):
“Yes, Mr. President, shrink government and budget … BUT of course not for defense, not for security, not for education, not for health care, not for environment, not for infrastructure in my corner of the country – not for the program from which I profit! Or those profit to whom I am committed.”
I assume, most of those who advocate a shrinking government and a leaner state, do not know well enough themselves and their nation and their government’s beneficial contributions to society.
The state, the government will grow inevitably with its growing challenges, and the REAL question is: How to restore GOOD GOVERNANCE, how to develop competence and efficiency IN government and OF government?
Bad for the future of the USA, that most citizens there are ideologically convinced that government itself is inherently incompetent.
Thus Americans undermine their own nation and future in indulging in a vital and central vicious circle.
The Bush government is an example for that: They run the government with a disdain for government – and we see the result.
This result now just confirms the citizens that government is incompetent anyway, and so they do not insist in a policy that could restore government competence.
Is there any candidate in the Presidency race who has government competence as a central part of his or her message?
If not – how will you produce enough government officials who are devoted to good governance in their government job, and not to private profitting or a merely partisan agenda?
So it is easy to anticipate: US governing will continue to deteriorate.
(This is a gloomy GERMAN view of your American predicament.)
Left by Leo Brux
July 8, 2007 at 5:47am