There has been much back slapping in the media and the blogosphere over identifying Mike Huckabee as a “Compassionate Conservative.” In fact a search of his website will find the phrase “Compassionate Conservatism” three times. (Changing to Compassionate Conservative” yields similar results.) In all three instances they are in the comments sections of posts. I don’t doubt that one can make the argument, but there appears to be a dearth of direct evidence for the accusation. In the absence of self-proclamation one must really wonder if there is an alternate agenda in play.
It probably doesn’t help matters that “compassionate conservatism” gets blamed for all that is wrong with the Bush administration. One part of the blame goes to the prescription drug expansion. What goes unmentioned there is that not a single candidate running for president actually is offering to repeal that benefit. It passed with plenty of support from folks who wouldn’t self-describe themselves as “compassionate conservatives.” Another part is the “No Child Left Behind Act.” Huckabee’s own education page actually criticizes “No Child Left Behind.” He states, “As President, my education agenda will include working towards a clear distinction between the federal role in assisting and empowering states and in usurping the right of states to carry out the education programs for their students.” The other part of “Compassionate Conservatism” was the subsidization of private sector efforts. This area was headed up by David Kuo until he became disgusted with the lack of action. These programs as best I can remember didn’t have much enthusiasm for subsidization at the federal level and generally fell under the category of “The government could do worse.”
The thing I find most interesting about the charge is that it is an indirect way of saying he’s running as George Bush. I find it humorous, because the three establishment candidates have been attempting to run as the competent Bush, and there really hasn’t been a whole lot said about it. The closest the establishment has come to acknowledging the truth is this National Review piece noting that the Republican base’s views are not in line with the electorate. Rudy Giuliani started his campaign as the one who would follow in Bush’s foot steps in the War on Terror but only better. Mitt Romney started his campaign as the candidate who would follow in Bush’s foot steps but better manage things given his experience. And of course Fred Thompson entered the race as the man who was more of a real social conservative and believed in limited government but would still lead in the War on Terror.
The truly amazing thing is that Huckabee’s ascendancy has come largely absent any attempt to ride Bush’s coattails. While some will claim it is ridiculous, President Bush’s policies really aren’t all that unpopular in the party. For the faithful, the frustrating thing has been the lack of execution, not the policies themselves. In Iowa particularly, I think Huckabee’s rise owes a significant debt to his heresy of heresies, lack of support for free trade. A front page Wall Street Journal article hinted at this the day before Thanksgiving. It would have been interesting to see how Duncan Hunter would have done if he hadn’t been such a one trick pony on immigration given that he has Protectionist views. We won’t know that, but the article was fascinating because it kept repeating in quotes and commentary that all the Iowans were a bunch of ignorant rubes for believing that free trade hadn’t benefited them. This despite the story noting how their health care plans were worse and how at least one company had gone to a two tier wage system so that children growing up in these towns would have no hope of supporting their families in the jobs their fathers had used to support their families. Actually acknowledging the real effects of our trade policies is what is really helping Huckabee connect with the over 40% of the base that doesn’t believe the FiscalCon lie of free trade.
Ad-Free & Subscriber Log-In