Jan 08 2008
David Brooks got Huckabee wrong
David Brooks had some interesting things to say about Mike Huckabee recently. Unfortunately, some of it got the picture wrong.
Second, Huckabee understands much better than Mitt Romney that we have a crisis of authority in this country. People have lost faith in their leaders’ ability to respond to problems. While Romney embodies the leadership class, Huckabee went after it. He criticized Wall Street and K Street. Most importantly, he sensed that conservatives do not believe their own movement is well led. He took on Rush Limbaugh, the Club for Growth and even President Bush. The old guard threw everything they had at him, and their diminished power is now exposed.
First off, Huckabee simply used “the establishment” as a rhetorical device. When someone criticized Huckabee’s positions (or lack thereof), he would just brush it off by saying they were upset because he wasn’t beholden to Wall Street or K Street. Much like McCain’s response to Romney’s “attack” ads, Huckabee avoids actually discussing criticisms and providing substantive answers by claiming it’s because he’s an outsider. Huckabee understands little more than how to talk.
Moreover,”The Old Guard” did not throw everything they have at Huckabee. To the contrary, there is no perfect candidate running against him. All of his opponents have had significant flaws or obstacles to overcome.
Third, Huckabee understands how middle-class anxiety is really lived. Democrats talk about wages. But real middle-class families have more to fear economically from divorce than from a free trade pact. A person’s lifetime prospects will be threatened more by single parenting than by outsourcing. Huckabee understands that economic well-being is fused with social and moral well-being, and he talks about the inter-relationship in a way no other candidate has.
Which is why Huckabee supports a tax system that would screw over the middle and lower classes? Again, all talk and little substance.
A conservatism that recognizes stable families as the foundation of economic growth is not hard to imagine. A conservatism that loves capitalism but distrusts capitalists is not hard to imagine either. Adam Smith felt this way. A conservatism that pays attention to people making less than $50,000 a year is the only conservatism worth defending.
Yeah, it’s called Crunchy Conservatism.
(CC) 2010
[...] Protestant Pontifications, Mark criticizes Mike Huckabee’s lack of substance. He quotes David Brooks that “A conservatism that [...]
He’s a schmuck. And he’s too beholden to Israel and his warmongering theories of a messianic policy to do right by Americans and the world. Plus, he believes essentially in well-meaning socialism.
[...] about crunchy conservatism generally and Rod personally, I don’t agree. I agree with Mark of Protestant Pontifications that crunchy conservatism is the real version of Brooks’ “conservatism that pays [...]