1

Joe,

Awesome post. You might consider writing a book on this topic -- I think it would be fascinating.

Alex

2

Yes, great post. There needs to be a book that explores the slow creep within conservatism toward libertarianism. I think that is at the heart of the problem here.

3

Amen Brother!

I have been a conservative evangelical Christian for many years. I am a small business owner and several members of my family are currently serving in Iraq. I listen daily (or did until a few weeks ago when all the Huckabee bashing started on talk radio) to conservative/family talk radio. I have been struck dumb by the pundocracy's reaction to Mike Huckabee's candidacy. My wife and I have watched every youtube video we can get our hands on with regards to Mike Huckabee and his stance on the issues of our day. Almost without fail every time we listen to one of the videos, we look at each other and say... "Thats! what we have been talking about for years!!!" I haven't left conservatism, the pundits and republican elites have left me. Thank goodness for Mike. Keep up the good fight.

In Christ,

Bill Henry

4

Joe wrote:

The fact that Reynolds (and many others) think that screwing over one's employees is a central "free-market principle" is disheartening. But for him to imply that doing so is compatible with conservatism shows how ill-informed many "economic conservatives" have become about what it means to be conservative. Their attempts to smuggle in community-destroying practices in the guise of conservative principles is despicable.

I believe Professor Reynolds would disagree with you here Joe. He's not saying screwing over one's employees is a central free market principle. He's saying that the government allowing companies to screw over their employees is a central free market principle.

In the end, the free market catches up with folks like this. And so Glenn asks...

So he's playing the populist "no CEO should cash out for millions while the poor schlub working the factory floor loses his retirement" shtick, and he's not afraid to campaign as a BIG government type who as president will want laws overturning free-market principles?

See the part about BIG government in there? Its probably becuase Huckabee said he would regulate them as a last resort. A sorta worst case scenario. This tells me that Huckabee would use the government to force these businesses to do what he wants them to do, rather than what the free market demands.

Is that conservative?

5

Joe wrote:

The fact that Reynolds (and many others) think that screwing over one's employees is a central "free-market principle" is disheartening. But for him to imply that doing so is compatible with conservatism shows how ill-informed many "economic conservatives" have become about what it means to be conservative. Their attempts to smuggle in community-destroying practices in the guise of conservative principles is despicable.

I believe Professor Reynolds would disagree with you here Joe. He's not saying screwing over one's employees is a central free market principle. He's saying that the government allowing companies to screw over their employees is a central free market principle.

In the end, the free market catches up with folks like this. And so Glenn asks...

So he's playing the populist "no CEO should cash out for millions while the poor schlub working the factory floor loses his retirement" shtick, and he's not afraid to campaign as a BIG government type who as president will want laws overturning free-market principles?

See the part about BIG government in there? Its probably becuase Huckabee said he would regulate them as a last resort. A sorta worst case scenario. This tells me that Huckabee would use the government to force these businesses to do what he wants them to do, rather than what the free market demands.

Is that conservative?

6

Real conservatives *do* approve of government regulatioin as a last resort. We think it's okay for gov't to regulate "adult" magazines and the like, for example. The practical question is always when does it go too far and make the wheels come off the bus, and that's the one we have to wrestle with.

Back when I was a leftist, I aways hated that about Republicans, that just when I had them trapped logically they would resort to the claim: "But what you're advocating isn't practical." Drove me nuts. As a conservative, I know that gov't has to work in the real world. Good free-market principles are based on that same idea, since too much government interference in the market hurts businesses and people (just enough, like building roads, is better than none at all). Bad free-market principles elevate "free-market" to replace "glory to God".

7

Just how have these elites moved toward libertarianism? The state, under their leadership, has grown tremendously in all areas. In fact, for starters, there really isn't a libertarian bone in the Bush Administration's collective body, nor was their one in most of the former Republican congressional majority. Likewise, mainstream conservative publications are mostly neoconservative now, and more likely to see libertarianism as an enemy as dangerous as communism, than as anything resembling an ideological ally.

The libertarianism angle here is a red herring. If the elites were moving toward libertarianism, conservatives' pet issues like gay marriage and Roe v. Wade would be on the chopping block.

8

Joe, with perhaps minor disagreements, your representation of conservatism is something I could really support.
Now, if only Mike would stop showing up and preaching at places like Cornerstone, I could support him 100% from a political stand point.

9

I think the key disconnect here between the chattering classes (pundits) and the heartland is that most citizens simply aren't ideologues. They have strong convictions that often form a complex of basic beliefs, but they simply aren't as juvenile, thin-skinned, petty, or elitist as so many right-wing "opinion" makers.

I have heard disgust expressed time and time again because regular people know what to expect from "commentator X" before they hear it because that commentator shows no original thinking, and simply grinds whatever issue is at hand through the same old manifold of ideology to arrive at an op-ed column.

That was the real strength of Huckabee's appearance on Leno last night. He showed that he has firm convictions, but that he is no ideologue. Quite frankly, you can make an idol out of any political orientation, whether it be liberal, libertarian, or conservative.

It may sound cliche to talk about transcending the dualistic left/right rubric, but that's what successful statesmen do. And they are able to do it best when they do it from a position of firm principles that are open do critical dialogue.

10

Fantastic post. Really, you should consider writing a book on this so you can really flesh this out.

11

Joe:
Excellent! You've been on quite a roll lately. Your posts just keep getting better and better. No doubt you've got your finger on the pulse of what is happening within the Reagan conservative movement. Thanks, again!

12

Dude, conservatism has always been about attempting to return America to the Gilded Age, and to have folks like Huckabee's supporters go back to the coal mines.

I've said it before & I'll say it again: conservatism is as dead as communism; Katrina showed that Americans don't want "small" government (whatever that means!) they want effective government, which is simply that what government is supposed to do, it should do it well.

And what government is supposed to do is a lot more expansive than what the apparatchiks and party hacks and propagandists (can you say "Hugh Hewitt?") think. It includes decent health care, decent public education, and protections for the middle and lower classes from privation and extortion by the richest. It includes shareholder rights. It includes a national defense that isn't a gravy train for the corporate heads of the likes of GE, Lockheed-Martin, etc. It does not include torture, waterboarding, and the funding of death squads.

Essentially, it is the exact opposite of what conservatism has done in the past 5 decades. And that's why it's dead.

13

Thank you Joe. I've been trying to put my finger on just what has bothered me so much about how out of touch the punditocracy is, and you've nailed it here. It would seem from the comments so far that you are pretty accurate in assessing the Reagan conservatives.

Specifically on the fiscal conservatism - do the "true" fiscal conservatives truly advocate a free market? If so, would they then lobby for the removal of the Fed and the dismantling of any regulation in the area of business, lending, etc? The thing that has bugged me the most about the "subprime meltdown" is that so called fiscal conservatives are running around saying the Fed should bail them out now - free market only on the way up, apparently. And hasn't this whole specific financial crisis pointed out that Huck was correct? I mean, the guy who sent eTrade to the toilet leaves and gets $11 Million? Or Mozillo (CFC's CEO) sells his stock for millions while telling everyone else to buy, knowing it was headed into the dumps?

14

Great post, Joe. I would add also one more point to make explicit what is implied by the one-legged conservatism: namely that the one-leg conservatism is coherent in ways that a "fiscal vs social vs defense" perspective is not.

That perhaps is the most troubling assumption underlying the DC-elite trichotomy: that somehow the only way to unite the supposed three legs is for each leg to make pragmatic compromises-in-principle to each other because the legs are fundamentally at odds.

It is true that for some elites, the unity is incoherent because of their personal philosophical choices regarding the nature of human beings, civil society and government, but their philosophical understanding of humanity is at fault. A proper, coherent understanding of human nature and politics and their limits demands the spectrum of conservative principles first because it is right and coherent, not simply practical.

I thought this was implied in your post, but I thought I would make it explicit.

15

Mumon,

You did a nice job of knocking down that strawman! Reminded me of a young Ray Lewis. Superb!

16

MikeT:

Maybe you're right, that what the conservative establishment is drifting toward isn't libertarianism. Joe's still right, though, in that what they're drifting toward - where they are right now, in fact - isn't conservatism as most of the conservative voters think of it.

So what would you call the direction in which the conservative establishment has drifted? Liberalism-lite, maybe? (Because they seem to be adopting all the liberal positions, just 20 years later.)

I don't want a conservativism that says that the liberals have gone too far. They have, but the point is, that they've gone in the wrong direction entirely.

17

what you call "raygun conservatives" are actually part of a much older bunch known as the "leave-it-to-beavers" who believe that the 50's was some sort of a golden age in america from which we have fallen...of course there people are for the most part middle aged white christian men and to them,yeah maybe the 50's was the time to be alive...for everyone else however,it was hell on earth...women were chained to the oven, blacks were routinely killed by the KKK, gays were openly persecuted and and if they lived in the south,had to hide in order not to get killed and anyone who did not think along the lines of white chirstian america was essentially branded a "red commie" and blacklisted...the 50's were not a golden age...they were our version of a dark age,they are thankfully gone and anyone who tries to bring them back should be taken out back and shot.

18

oclarki :

I'm not misrepresnting conservatism; "by its fruits ye shall know them" applies here in spades.

Rather, I'd say it's self-avowed conservatives who misrepresent conservatism (can you say, "'Fair' Tax?")

I'm just calling it the way it is, and like Harry Truman, it's not my fault if it seems like where all the unsaved folks go when they die...

19

Ludwig:

"...they were our version of a dark age,they are thankfully gone and anyone who tries to bring them back should be taken out back and shot."

Wow. What you're proposing sure sounds like a dark age. Maybe those who value tolerance should also give some...

20

"Wow. What you're proposing sure sounds like a dark age. Maybe those who value tolerance should also give some..."

I couldnt care less about "tolerance"..."tolerance" is just a euphemism for "i MIGHT not stomp on you if you make yourself scarse"..what people need is respect...not "tolerance". But the "leave-it-to-beavers" never had any rspect for anyone or any idea that's not "one of their own". Showing "tolerance" for people like is just inviting them to push you further out from under the sun.

21

Joe,

This is a great post. It should be placed as a column in another site with more traffic. National Review Online ought to have the decency to publish it as a balance to their other stuff.

22

Sorry Joe, but you've gone from being objective to a Huckanut. I suppose bashing everyone else is one way of campaigning, but not what I'd like to see. Can't Mike stand on his own record...oops, I guess that's a silly question, of course he can't. Just being a Christian doesn't qualify him for office, all of his work as Governor of Arkansas does, or in this case doesn't.

Seems like good old Mike has turned you loose to spread rumor and innuendo. I suppose that might work, or maybe not. I'm no Romney fan, but Huckabee is the worse of the two.

23

"So what would you call the direction in which the conservative establishment has drifted? Liberalism-lite, maybe?"

Statism.

Which is why people like me see very little difference in the governing philosophies of any of the leading GOP candidates. All believe in using government--particularly Federal--coercion to implement a moral agenda.

Mike T has it right. Calling the direction that the GOP elites have moved "libertarian" is demonstrably false.

24

Joe:

Just a single post ago - in regards to the Dumond story - you decried the tragedy of the sound bite and how no one could listen to an explanation lasting more than 30 seconds.

Now, in the very next breath you [and Mike Huckabee] have done PRECISELY the same thing with your streamlined narrative about "corporate boards that award CEOs with $200 million bonuses while the workers are taking 40% pay cuts." Bravo.

As in the case of Dumond, the real story is far more complex but it is easier to demonize corporations and economic conservatives with sound bites, right?

How come nobody ever talks about "government greed"? I fear the government, which takes 50 percent of my earnings while always asking for more, far more than any CEO.

Huckabee specifically mentioned "the airlines." How is it that such a horrific thing as he describes happens? To find the truth, one must dig into the intricate world of government (i.e. taxpayer funded) bailouts, federal bankruptcy courts, and court-approved Key Employee Compensation Programs.

It is eminently hypocritical for a government bureaucrat to sit there and point the finger at "greedy corporations" when it is they themselves who have destroyed efficient, free markets with government intervention. They accuse while they pretend to be innocent bystanders, hoping that no one notices. These corporations can hardly be considered private enterprises any more. They are more like quasi-governmental agencies. The ugly truth is that market imbalances and monopolies are almost always created by the government.

Moreover, nobody is holding a gun to the employees heads. Your narrative portrays the average American as a helpless victim of the omnipotent corporation, utterly powerless to effect change in their own lives. Hogwash. If my boss came to me and said that tomorrow my pay would be cut by 40 percent he would be looking for a new employee posthaste.

25

Conservatives in Washington (and New York, for that matter) have a tendency to forget that their way of thinking is anomalous and deviates significantly from most "heartland" conservatives.

Excuse me for muddying up your neat little prejudices with facts, but most of the conservatives in Washington come here from the places you call the "Heartland". You guys are pretty quick to pretend they're aliens the minute they deviate from your party line and admit a little reality into their thinking. But that's not at all surprising, given how many of you accused Reagan (!) of "treason" before he even took office.

26

Huckabee is an Evangelical, socially conservative, bleeding heart liberal. He is Jimmy Carter.

27

Jeff Blogworthy,

That was a tremendous reply! I think Joe makes some decent points, but I'm pretty sure Ronald Reagan would say the same thing as you. I'm really sick of big corporations or big business being demonized when big government does exactly what you say. I've worked for big companies, and I hate it. I hate the politics, the pressure, just not my bag, but I appreciate what these companies do, the people they employ, and the products and services they provide that make our lives better. I'd rather err on the side of letting the free market do its thing.

This creeping populism, even if it might be more rhetorical than policy specific bothers me. I think it was accurately called statism above. There are many so-called conservatives and every liberal who have a vested interest in Leviathan growing ever larger and more intrusive. Follow the money. And I'm uncomfortable with calling people that disagree with me elites. I've been guilty of it myself, but what seems to be the point is that these so called elites have their perceptions distorted because of where they live and work. The reason we say that? Because they disagree with us. I call this punditry populism, and I don't like it any more than the other kind.

28

Glenn Reynolds didn't say what you attributed to him, a reader did. Hence it saying " UPDATE: Reader Ken Kemper emails:" RIGHT ABOVE the quote you attribute to Mr. Reynolds.

http://instapundit.com/archives2/013338.php

If you are going to bash a guy, at least bash him for his own words, not someone else's.

I guess you could always find a job at CBS.

29

Despite having been firmly entrenched in the evangelical movement for the past twenty years, posts like this display in spades why I'm about ready to dump it all. Politically, I noticed I'd been nudged out of the mainstream (of evangelical politics) at the last election, though hints were there in 2004. That Huckabee is cheered and voted for because he's an evangelical and then conservatism is defined around him (and, conveniently, evangelicalism)and trumpeted as the last remaining bastion of Reaganism has me throwing up my hands in surrender. I'm unimpressed by the argumentation--frustrated by it, actually--and, yes, I'm venting.

I became a Republican because of Reagan and then I'd hear some of my friends (all evangelical) claim this or that for Reagan and I'd counter that none of that had anything to do with Reaganism but had much to do with (then) the Moral Majority.

Oh, and since I've probably got to give bonafides, I lived in Arkansas under Huckabee and grew to resent the fact that I voted for him. And all that as an evangelical pastor in a small Arkansas town. Yea, I'm disillusioned and I'm venting (and prepared to be flamed) but all the words here don't convince me that evangelical political thought=conservatism.

Now I guess I'll just go back to "screwing over employees" because, yea, that's what I believe, and, since I now live in Texas, wondering what in the world the thought presented as what's current "back home in Texas" has to do with the people I rub shoulders with on a daily basis (Oh, I forgot, people I hang out with are too busy screwing over employees to understand that Joe's brand of evangelical politics is true conservatism).

Disappointed, disillusioned. But thanks for the forum to vent. I've needed to do that for a long time.

30

I guess Huckabee could say he is fiscally conservative had not he governed like a tax-imposing Progressive.

Then again McCain said he never support amnesty for those without legal status.

And Romney doesn't think that government-mandated health insurance is not really forcing people to have health insurance.

Rudy governed NYC so it's okay to restrict 2nd amendment rights and support sanctuary city because afterall, America is all about NYC.

Fred has received an abundance of pro-life endorsements, though, as well as, having a wealth of respect for limiting the role of government by tapping into American exceptionalism.

31

I guess Huckabee could say he is fiscally conservative had not he governed like a tax-imposing Progressive.

Then again McCain said he never support amnesty for those without legal status.

And Romney doesn't think that government-mandated health insurance is not really forcing people to have health insurance.

Rudy governed NYC so it's okay to restrict 2nd amendment rights and support sanctuary city because afterall, America is all about NYC.

Fred has received an abundance of pro-life endorsements, though, as well as, having a wealth of respect for limiting the role of government by tapping into American exceptionalism.

32

I guess Huckabee could say he is fiscally conservative had not he governed like a tax-imposing Progressive.

Then again McCain said he never support amnesty for those without legal status.

And Romney doesn't think that government-mandated health insurance is not really forcing people to have health insurance.

Rudy governed NYC so it's okay to restrict 2nd amendment rights and support sanctuary city because afterall, America is all about NYC.

Fred has received an abundance of pro-life endorsements, though, as well as, having a wealth of respect for limiting the role of government by tapping into American exceptionalism.

33

I guess Huckabee could say he is fiscally conservative had not he governed like a tax-imposing Progressive.

Then again McCain said he never support amnesty for those without legal status.

And Romney doesn't think that government-mandated health insurance is not really forcing people to have health insurance.

Rudy governed NYC so it's okay to restrict 2nd amendment rights and support sanctuary city because afterall, America is all about NYC.

Fred has received an abundance of pro-life endorsements, though, as well as, having a wealth of respect for limiting the role of government by tapping into American exceptionalism.

34

I guess Huckabee could say he is fiscally conservative had not he governed like a tax-imposing Progressive.

Then again McCain said he never support amnesty for those without legal status.

And Romney doesn't think that government-mandated health insurance is not really forcing people to have health insurance.

Rudy governed NYC so it's okay to restrict 2nd amendment rights and support sanctuary city because afterall, America is all about NYC.

Fred has received an abundance of pro-life endorsements, though, as well as, having a wealth of respect for limiting the role of government by tapping into American exceptionalism.

35

I think that you've got things backwards. It isn't us "fiscal conservatives" or whatever you want to call us who are cherry-picking but the Huckster and his boosters like you who figure that you can throw us under the bus. So perhaps the economy or immigration or defense are our big issues while abortion and stem cells or whatever are yours. Fair enough. We'll give you yours if you give us ours. But now, with the Huck, you're telling us to get bent. You want your way and the hell with us. Huck is the one-legged conservative all right, and us other two legs aren't going to be there in November. So go ahead and run with him if you want. We'll sit back and sing the Notre Dame fight song for you. (whoops, sorry about that Notre Dame part. I guess us rotten papists forget how offensive Mary is to you).

36

I think it's a bit on the ludicrous side to claim that the conservative movement is creeping towards libertarianism.

Please sit back and review the last 8 years of Bush's presidency. Now point out anything even REMOTELY libertarian about his presidency.

The reality is that the conservative movement have been creeping far more towards becoming a party of Christianity, rather than the party of Reagan.

And Huckabee is the last nail in that coffin.

37

Huckabee is as fiscally conservative as they come. Some of you must have seen a propaganda site like Club for Growth, which uses half-truths to sway opinion.

38

Joe, since when has Huckabee been a supply-sider? He doesn't use supply-sider terminology to describe his ideas about economics. You never hear him talking about monetary policy.

Heck, he supports a freakin' national sales tax. Supply side economics is all about removing barriers. Having the federal government impose a tax barrier on every transaction in the economy is the exact opposite of what supply-side economics advocates.

Huckabee is also for "fair trade" rather than free trade. Supply side economics teaches that "fair trade"
policies lead to self-defeating restrictions on free trade.

39

Please familiarize yourself with the FairTax before making such statements. Huckabee is talking about the FairTax when he is talking about fair trade, because of the embedded taxes in everything we produce vs imports from countries with the VAT tax in which all taxes are erased. That gives those countries an edge over our goods.

40

My familiarity with the FairTax is exactly why I made "such statements".

41

Could you elaborate?
The FairTax removes many barriers.

42

The problem with the "Fair Tax" is that it is quite regressive. It would indeed help in exports, VAT helped European exports hugely in the 90s.

But in reality, we would end up with the regressive "Fair Tax" PLUS an income tax, yielding yet more government.

I am also an evangelical Christian. I oppose abortion in all cases, as I consider it to be murder. Same sex marriage, drug legalization, and most of the rest of the libertarian positions I support.

Yes, I know gays are committing a sin, and if they do not repent they will go straight to Hell, but that is their businesss and mine (as I should be trying like blazes to save their souls), but it is certainly not the business of the government.

I won't be voting for Huckabee in the primary. I will support Thompson. If Huck gets the nomination, I will hold my nose and vote for him for the SOLE reason of keeping more Ginsberg's and Souter's off the court, and hoping to eventuallyh stop the mass murder we as a nation have been engaged in for nearly 40 years.

43

The GOP is not, and was not intended to be, the Jesus Party, it is the conservative party, by which we mean what is sometimes referred to as "classical liberalism (look it up on Wikipedia if you don't know what I mean.) It is not the party of The Bible, it is the party of freedom and prosperity. Whether rural evangelicals like it or not, the issues of abortion, or homosexuals hiding behind the hedgerow, or whatever other not-very-nice behaviours they are unhappy about are secondary at the Federal level, and best settled locally.
If that is unacceptable to rural evangelical statists, I suggest they form their own party along the lines of various Christian Democratic parties found around the world, based upon both social and economic restrictiveness. I am sure that temporary coalitions could be formed with both Democrats and Republicans in Congress to push through particular bits of legislation.

44

The FairTax would be progressive due to the prebates. This is the best idea in a hundred years and would be good for everybody.

Unlike Bush, Huckabee would be more willing to hold down spending. The propaganda put out by Club for Growth has hurt Huckabee somewhat, but I think if people look for the truth, they will find it as I did.

Club for Growth propaganda taking something out of context.

Entire speech looks a lot different, with context.

That is just an example of what certain people (Romney for example) are trying to do -- anything to win an election.