(Note: This was a submission to PajamasMedia)
Mike Huckabee's comments against the ostensible libertarianism of the Republican Party for the last eight years or more reveal a brewing battle for the soul of social conservatism in America. According to him, libertarianism in all of its variations is uncompassionate, un-American, and incompatible with social conservatism. He has accused libertarians of all stripes, even right-of-center libertarians who share much in common with conservatives, of being little more than cold-hearted Scrooges who must be opposed by social conservatives. Earlier this year, he said:
Mike Huckabee's comments against the ostensible libertarianism of the Republican Party for the last eight years or more reveal a brewing battle for the soul of social conservatism in America. According to him, libertarianism in all of its variations is uncompassionate, un-American, and incompatible with social conservatism. He has accused libertarians of all stripes, even right-of-center libertarians who share much in common with conservatives, of being little more than cold-hearted Scrooges who must be opposed by social conservatives. Earlier this year, he said:
The greatest threat to classic Republicanism is not liberalism; it's this new brand of libertarianism, which is social liberalism and economic conservatism, but it's a heartless, callous, soulless type of economic conservatism because it says "look, we want to cut taxes and eliminate government. If it means that elderly people don't get their Medicare drugs, so be it. If it means little kids go without education and healthcare, so be it." Well, that might be a quote pure economic conservative message, but it's not an American message...
If you have a breakdown in the social structure of a community, it's going to result in a more costly government ... police on the streets, prison beds, court costs, alcohol abuse centers, domestic violence shelters, all are very expensive. What's the answer to that? Cut them out? Well, the libertarians say "yes, we shouldn't be funding that stuff."
It's actually Huckabee and men like him who are the ahistorical aberrations in the conservative movement. Traditionally, conservatives have agreed that none of these things aside from courts, police and prisons are the natural duty of the state. For centuries, it was the accepted social norm among conservatives that it was the duty of the church, not the state, to provide social services ranging from caring for the elderly, to providing educations for indigent children. For centuries, that is precisely what it did.
Libertarians may be extreme in some respects here, but they drink from the same ideological and philosophical fountain that has fed conservatism for ages. Huckabee is certainly no Reaganite conservative here, as Reagan understood that libertarianism was quite similar to conservatism, and that together libertarianism and conservatism have a very healthy, dynamic tension that fights dogmatism while retaining core principles.
For social conservatives, there is an insidious danger in taking Huckabee's advice seriously on these issues. We have witnessed the state steadily usurp the traditional role of the church as a pillar of the community by taking over its duties. As the state has risen to prominence, the church's importance has receded. If one were to look at society as a living organism, the church is starting to find itself becoming a part that is as useful to the whole organism as an appendix is to the human body. Listening to men like Huckabee is a prescription for more of the same.
What's amazing is that Huckabee's message has any serious audience at all among social conservatives. Study after study has shown that social conservatives are, as a group, both fiscally conservative in a way similar to what Huckabee demonized, and yet extremely generous with their wealth for charity. In many respects, Huckabee's criticism of libertarianism here is also a criticism of many social conservatives because they too oppose social welfare programs and would rather see education be first and foremost the responsibility of parents and families.
Perhaps the reason that Huckabee has been so harsh in the past toward Ron Paul is the fact that Ron Paul represents the other side of social conservatism. Ron Paul attracted the support of many people who are socially conservative, but distrustful of the state. That is a conservatism that has taken stock in the history of government and realized that government guarantees of medicine, education and other programs are more likely to create a society dependent on the state, than one that is healthy, educated and one that has a healthy balance sheet.
The social conservative wing of the Republican Party has been presented so far with the choice of either jettisoning the oogedy boogedy things that make people like Kathleen Parker squeamish or becoming economic pragmatists who prefer some conservative economic policies, but are otherwise perfectly comfortable with welfare statism. I will now present a third path: a fusion with libertarianism.
For social conservatives who value the ability to be left alone, to live their lives according to their values, it's becoming more and more apparent that the old strategies are not working. Most notably, they are not working on the issue of defending traditional marriage. Libertarians have been right for years in warning that one day social conservatives would be betrayed by their insistence on having the government regulate marriage, and now social conservatives face a daunting reality. If they lose the battle against gay marriage in any state, the full faith and credit clause may be used to impose it on all fifty states. If libertarians have been right on this issue, one of supreme importance to social conservatives, it stands to reason that they ought to be at least heard and given respectful consideration on other issues as well.
Compassionate conservatives like Mike Huckabee may be good men, but they're not good leaders or good inspiration for social conservatism. Their philosophy is what got us in this mess in the first place. If social conservatives want our ideas to be taken seriously in a society that increasingly has little in common with us, we must back away from coercive ideologies and methods, and adopt a libertarian live-by-example approach to convincing society to listen to us and change freely. We can't do that so long as we are being lead by men who would have the state shoulder the burdens that are rightfully ours to bear.
Huckabee means well. But his problem is that he's just as statist as Obama, as you've said. He wants to use the power of the state to impose his brand of morality on others, just as the lefties do.
Those of us libertarians see that the same government that can give can also oppress. The government that helps can also harm in the same breath.
"Most notably, they are not working on the issue of defending traditional marriage."
This is important. Social cons seem to consider the divorce issue as one of sin and not worthy of public debate. Yet it is precisely their silence and public funding that subsidizes divorce, and therefore nullifies all their efforts--which usually amount to bamboozling men into marrying some divorce-prone hag--on the marriage front. I'd rather see them attack the issue of divorce than expend ammo on the loser that homogamy is. If Biff wants to bone Larry, let him. Jesus isn't about compelling people anyway...he lets them have all the rope they want.
Ironically, Huckabee is proposing a more muscular government, one that displaces the Church in the social fabric of people's lives. You'd think that he, a former pastor, would want to expand the influence of the Church and retract gummint to make way.
Huckabee's as statist as Obama? Thats the typical Libertarian line that Righties are as statist as Lefties. Its not true. Even a statist Righty...say Pinochet is not as bad as a statist Lefty...say Mao. Perhaps five orders of magnitude difference in number of victims for one thing.
Homosexual marriage is 30-0 for defenders of marriage. Its more popular than Republicanism in California. There is a good arguement to be made that if we want to be popular, and get Republicans elected whole hog, we ought to go the Huckabee route, and ditch Tarians off the side of the boat as fast as possible.
And the statement...social liberalism and economic conservatism is the biggest threat to the Republicans is exactly correct. RINOs are the biggest threat to Republicans nowadays. Tarians share some points with RINOs, but its not a complete unity. One difference between them is that Tarians tend to actually have principles (well some of them, some are just narcisissists and libertines).
There is another choice for social conservatives. We take over the Republican Party. We press for full-bore conservatism, and we encourage other smaller groups like Hawks, Communitarians, the WSJ/Chamber types, and Libertarians, and reasonable RINOs to help bring about the Standard Conservative ideals with a smile and boldness.
Happily for the Libertarians, the Standard Conservative is very largely Libertarian to begin with. Unhappily, he's only slightly going to change toward more Libertarianism (well unhappily at least from the Tarian POV). Its now time and past time for the Tarians to get on board and help out. If someone sixty times larger than you wants to help you get ninety percent of what you want, well....
However, it would help if the Tarians gave up on their 'drop homosexual marriage resistance'. Its more likely that Tarians would get dropped if it came to that.
It would be also good if Tarians re-argued their drug legalization in a more limited fashion--as you did with the SWAT raid arguement which I agree with in general. Dealers of soft drugs who don't have a history of violence don't need a visit from a SWAT team.
Another thing that would help is if the Tarians (and I don't include you in this number) would drop their prejudgice and bigotry against socons. If one wonders how such incompetents have run the R party for so long, well, the Tarians have been biting the ankles of the natural leaders of the party for a long time, and thus aiding the RINOs in charge. Instead, yes, fusionism between the big fat chicken and its tiny wing, and Libertarians will find so much value from this new arrangement that they'll be wondering why they didn't do it a decade ago.
But if they keep pushing, they empower Mike Huckabee.
A lot of social conservatives feel the same way about libertarians that they say that libertarians feel about them. I can't even begin to count the number of times when I've been treated like a Godless heathen just because I think that people should be free to make bad choices that really only hurt themselves. I've also been subjected to social conservatives lecturing me on what substance abuse can do to families and why "I'm naive" when in fact unlike many of them, I grew up in a family wracked by it and realized in my teenage years that the state literally couldn't do anything to ameliorate the effects of the substance abuse.
So really, the bigotry is on both sides here. I would also not include communitarians as they are just warmed over communists who are a bit squeamish about openly proclaiming the joys of following Karl Marx's economic plan. They're collectivists in the "never met a liberty that mustn't be regulated from cradle-to-grave" sense.
I stand by my statement that Huckabee has some deeply, deeply statist tendencies. He's not even a conservative on a lot of economic stances, as he says that the state should be providing a real welfare safety net for anyone that the churches cannot or won't take care of. In my opinion, that's wrong-headed.If the church won't take care of you, chances are it is for a good reason, and if the churches cannot, it's probably because taxes are too high on their wealthier donors.
Huckabee's biggest problem is that he identifies libertarians as the real problem, when in fact libertarians had zero influence these last eight years aside from Ron Paul's candidacy. The last eight years were dominated by the neoconservatives and the Rockefeller Republicans. Huckabee needs to learn the difference between the Rockefeller Republicans and libertarians, since most of what he's blaming us for, is actually the fault of the Rockefeller Republicans who have been clinging to their position since the Nixon era was over.
I think the relationship between socons and tarians is more like the relationship between whites and blacks. Blacks are obsessed about white racism, and white opinion. Whites are wondering what to put on the grill for dinner that night. Apathy more than bigotry and prejudgice defines the relationship of whites to blacks.
I'm willing to accept all votes. You come, contribute what you have of conservatism, and the Standard Conservative bends a little.
In the coming utopia, you're right about Huckabee. However, here and now, I suspect he could be talked into drastically limiting welfare to the truly deserving, and that would be a huge step forward. No need to kick him out until then. And by that time, he may see the light.
I'm not sure if identifying tarians as the problem is a bad idea. I've tried to talk to most tarians (not you) with love and kindness, and got slapped for it. OTOH, if I come on as BIG BAD, they start to act more reasonable.
I think your point about Rockefeller Republicans is an excellent one and should be carved in the walls of the lobby of the RNC by a battle laser.
let me rephrase that....some tarians, and gotten slapped for it. Its seems like if I come across as BIG BAD, some start to act more reasonable, and others more circumspect.
I don't want to try to shove my jerk-o-meter way over, but its seems like some people think nice=weak. And that is one of the things I like about CMR, that strength, courtesy, and thought are the norm here.