For those of you closely watching the 2008 election, it is impossible to miss the rise in the polls of Mike Huckabee, the former Arkansas governor and Baptist minister. Huckabee will probably win the Iowa caucuses, and just might win in South Carolina as well. I still predict the Mitt Romney will win New Hampshire, Michigan and Nevada (and Giuliani will win Florida, New York and New Jersey), but Huckabee is eating into the alternative-to-Giuliani wing of the party and confusing things mightily.
From the perspective of this conservative Mormon, it does not help things that Huckabee is not a conservative and that he is succeeding with thinly-veiled anti-Mormonism.
Let’s first deal with his anti-Mormonism. As this article details, Huckabee was asked on Sunday if Romney is a Christian, and his answer was to avoid answering. This was Huckabee’s opportunity to do what McCain and Giuliani have done, which is to basically say that religion should not be an issue in the campaign. Instead, Huckabee stoked the fires of anti-Mormonism by saying you would have to ask Romney if he is a Christian. Strike one.
Take a close look at this Iowa commercial put out by the Huckabee campaign. It is striking to me that Huckabee’s emphasis is on faith and his being a “Christian leader.” As Fred Barnes points out, this is unprecedented in modern campaigning. Pat Robertson campaigned as a conservative first and a Christian leader second, and Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton campaigned based on beings liberals first and religious leaders second. But for Huckabee, the single most important issue in Iowa in November 2007 is that he is a “Christian leader” driven by his faith.
It is clear to me that this appeal involves subtle anti-Mormonism. Huckabee and Romney are both trying appeal to Christian conservatives, who hold a preponderence of influence in the Iowa caucuses. Mitt is appealing to them based on his agreement with them on the issues — Huckabee is appealing to them based on agreeing with their religion. Listen to how he words it in this audio bite. His campaign is intended to drive home the fact that he is a traditional Christian and Romney is not. This is why he refused to say Romney is a Christian in Sunday’s interview. Strike two for Huckabee.
There are several other worrisome signs for Huckabee. One is his campaign’s acceptance of push-polling in Iowa. The other is some rumblings in the Brownback campaign about anti-Catholic slurs by Huckabee supporters. For me, this adds up to strike three for Huckabee, whose campaign crosses the line into the arena of whipping up religious prejudice.
It is important to note that Huckabee is not a conservative. He raised taxes again and again in Arkansas. He is against free trade. He is a smooth-talking economic populist, a social conservative Lou Dobbs who has never learned the primary lesson of the 2006 elections, which is that voters want lower taxes and less government, not the “compassionate conservatism” of President Bush, which increased the role of the federal government. And don’t get me started on foreign policy, where Huckabee is the biggest light-weight of all of the Republicans.
Anybody who wants to learn more about Huckabee (and his liberal bona fides) should check out this web page and this article.
Huckabee is certain to tear apart the conservative coalition that is needed to keep Hillary out of the White House. Business-oriented Republicans will never vote for him. Conservatives for whom national defense is important will reject his lack of experience and knowledge. His populism will scare many independents as well. The happiest person of all about the rise of Huckabee is Hillary.
Despite the fact that I am a social conservative, Giuliani is a notably better candidate than Huckabee. And I am not enthusiastic about Giuliani either. But the most distressing thing in all of this is that Huckabee’s campaign in Iowa is based on appealing to religious intolerance. We should all decry that.