Huckabee takes on the ‘heartless, callous, soulless’ libertarians

Rumor has it that former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee hopes to be seriously considered for the VP slot on John McCain’s ticket. The reasoning, the conventional wisdom suggests, is that Huckabee is very strong with the GOP’s religious right base, which McCain a) is unpopular with; and b) will need in several competitive states.

But like any party, the Republican Party is comprised of factions. Huckabee may help represent one, but he’s decided to trash another.

In an interview yesterday, Huckabee described his concerns about the state of the GOP. As he sees it, Democrats are moving to the “center,” while Republicans “are becoming libertarians.” As the former governor sees it, that’s a recipe for defeat.

“Republicans need to be Republicans. 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. It doesn’t fly. People aren’t going to buy that, because that’s not the way we are as a people. That’s not historic Republicanism. Historic Republicanism does not hate government; it’s just there to be as little of it as there can be. But they also recognize that government has to be paid for.

‘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.’ But what you’ve done then is exacerbate a serious problem in your community. You can take the cops off the streets and just quit funding prison beds. Are your neighborhoods safer? Is it a better place to live? The net result is you have now a bigger problem than you had before.”

I see. So, Mike Huckabee is disliked by the anti-immigration crowd, the Norquist anti-tax crowd, and the hawks and neocons who can’t take him seriously on national security issues.

But now Huckabee also wants to make sure he really offends the libertarian wing of the party.

Not surprisingly, Huckabee’s remarks yesterday were not well received in some circles. Justin Logan at the Cato Institute (a leading libertarian think tank) wrote:

First, there’s nothing “new” about libertarianism, although it appears someone’s just alerted Mike Huckabee to the phenomenon. Second, this business of the “un-Americanism” of libertarianism is ahistorical, although not particularly surprising coming from a Know Nothing demagogue like Mike Huckabee. Someday, advertising one’s own ignorance about the world won’t be considered a mark in one’s favor by conservatives. Until then, Mike Huckabee.

Or, as Reason’s Kerry Howley argued:

If “Republicans need to be Republicans,” and Mike Huckabee is one to be emulated, shall we define Republican as pro-national smoking ban, pro-total war on obesity, pro-creationism, pro-squirrel frying? Sounds good to me, and no less coherent than the current platform.

It’s hard to say with any real certainty just how big the libertarian wing of the Republican Party really is, but I have to wonder if Huckabee’s VP efforts just got a little more difficult.

Someday, advertising one’s own ignorance about the world won’t be considered a mark in one’s favor by conservatives. Until then, Mike Huckabee.

And John McCain, and George Bush, William Kristol, Paul Wolfowicz, David Brooks, Condi Rice, etc.

  • But they also recognize that government has to be paid for.

    Since when?
    Or did he mean to say “Has to be paid for during Democratic administrations so Republicans can whine about taxes”?

  • Remember that Huckabee is still trying to be a Christian. Somewhere deep down in Christianity is caring for your brother man. Being a libertarian is letting everyone take care of themselves.

    I don’t know if you can be a libertarian and a Christian but Huckabee is finding it very difficult to be a Republican and a Christian.

  • Huck is honest.

    He is a big government conservative. He’s out to do God’s will on earth through the power and the glory of government.

    Of course this pisses off the nordquist types big time.

  • hucklebee and shillary should team up, form a 3rd party, and run on an assassination platform.

  • If McCain picks Huckabee, they can be a unity ticket in the sense that all Republicans will hate them.

  • If we’re using Goldwater circa 1964 as the benchmark for genuine libertarian Republicanism, then Huckabee is clearly wrong as a factual matter that any of the government-sponsored social programs he notes would be approved by “true” Republicans; Ron Paul is much closer to that model than Huckabee is. That said, Huckabee’s views on this point are certainly a mark in his favor; if he weren’t an aggressively anti-intellectual religious nut I’d actually like this guy.

  • If John McCain picks Gomer Pyle as his running mate and Barack Obama chooses a Wes Clark or Jim Webb I think we’d be in for some very entertaining vice presidential debates to say the least. Huckabee’s awe-shucks routine won’t play very well.

  • Despite the religion thing, I have to admit that I have a grudging admiration for Huckabee for shitting on the libertarian wing who deserve what they get.

    What’s funny is that what most diplomats call failed states like Somalia and now Iraq are basically libertarian “paradise”s with the government in charge of basically nothing. If they are so gung ho about it, they can move there.

  • It has always been the central Republican paradox… that the Party is comprised of the hyper libertarian business/corporate types, and the hyper authoritarian religious right.

    The fact that they are able to win a lot of elections is a cosmic mystery.

  • 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.

    Down here in Georgia, making little kids going without because they were dumb enough to be born to poor parents is the foundation of Republicanism and conservatism. They call it “breed ’em but can’t feed ’em,” and want to stop giving them government money. Their biggest worry in life is that some poor person (minority) is getting something for free. That is all they think about! The rubes here always vote against their economic self-interest in the hopes they can make sure no poor person gets something for free from the government.

    Sure, some of the churches will help out the poor, but only if the poor allows themselves to be indoctrinated into the church.

    (“Breed ’em but can’t feed ’em” refers to the parents. “Breed ’em but don’t worry about feedin’ ’em” (or educating them) is the religious right.)

  • I think Bob Barr’s entering the race as a Libertarian scares the shit out of the Republicans. Barr won’t get that many votes, but they will practically ALL be at McCain’s expense. This is a situation that should, in my opinion, be getting a lot more attention than it is. Huck’s a smart politician and he knows Barr is going to be a problem that will need to be dealt with.

  • Huckabee is an “entertainer” and has probably earned himself a cable news show sometime in the future, but he should certainly not be considered as a Vice Presidential candidate. I would think that his “uproarious” remark about Senator Obama hitting the floor after having guns aimed at him would have removed him from the short list!

  • Good for Mike Huckabee. He makes a case for progressive social policies that balance community and personal interests. I applaud his remarks.

  • Huckabee continues to surprise. I’m not saying he is, in any way, qualified to be President — his heart is several sizes larger than his brain — but after thirty years of ‘hypocrisy calling itself Christianity,’ seeing someone who doesn’t think the Bible was written by Rove, Robertson, or the Republican Platform Committee is refreshing.

    Just as we will blast a spreader of nonsense whether she has an (R) or a (D) after her name, we should equally be willing to praise sense — and this is very sensible — and honesty, whatever party it comes from.

  • “Barr won’t get that many votes, but they will practically ALL be at McCain’s expense.”

    Plus Barr might be able to do substantially better than the usual Libertarian Party result of around 1%. Taking even 1%, and possibly as much as 5%, from McCain could tip the balance in several states.

  • Huckabee advocating responsibility to Republicans won’t go over well. Huckabee’s comments sound more like a broadside directed at Norquist as much as they confront Barr and the Libertarians. “Screw everyone else, I’ve got mine” is the central tenet of right wing thought these days. I don’t think Huckabee will get any points from fellow Republicans for this, but it is good to see a Republican pointing out the fatal flaws in current Republican philosophy.

  • If I may, there are certain aspects of libertarianism that I think are deserving of respect. Shitting on all of libertarianism in general makes one look like a complete fool. Liberty is good, at least when you consider you should able to do what you want as long as you don’t violate anybody’s else’s rights.

    And the fact is, competition forces improvement. Spare me the drawbacks for a moment (they are obvious), and be aware that some groups appear to want to totally eliminate competition. Powerful teachers’ unions, for example. And education has been on a downward spiral for years because of it. A *little* competition between schools would be very beneficial, but every tiny step in that direction is basically crushed by the unions. (Of course it doesn’t help that the proposals usually involve sending money to religious schools, but my point still stands.)

    Libertarians have a lot in common with Democrats, on issues such as drug legalization, the Iraq war, and abortion. The first time I saw the idea of taxing pollution was in the Libertarian platform, and now suddenly the most popular proposal is some sort of carbon credit thingy.

    In other words, don’t mock what you don’t know. For what it’s worth, I agree with the specific attacks of Mike Huckabee.

  • ::sigh:: I’ve become a big reader of this site, but sometimes the entries get very obtuse.

    Huckabee isn’t trying to appeal to the libertarians. The libertarians are most likely going to vote for the Libertarian Party this year, as the LP has a pretty strong candidate with Barr. Huck is trying to keep the theo-nuts, because that’s what he has to offer to McCain.

    Also, Huck isn’t as soulless as most politicians; he still has some genuine faith and there’s a large part of him that honestly wants to be a compassionate conservative and genuinely help the poor, as his religious faith abjures him. This is a huge reason the Powers That Be are both contemptuous of the man and a little bit scared of him; give him any real power, and he will genuinely spend tax money on those who need it most, instead of focusing his efforts towards the truly important stuff — lowering taxes on, and giving big government pay offs to, the already privileged and powerful.

    McCain has gotten this message loud and clear — you want to sit in the Big Chair, you need to make sure that the people standing behind it continue to get their suitcases full of cash. Huckabee still has enough personal principles to balk at that. It’s why McCain isn’t going to pick Huckabee, he just wants to have him on the list to string the godheads along a little bit longer.

  • Huckabee’s like a “star wedge.” It’s a handy little tool. Center it atop a cut log, give it a good whack with a sledge, and it splits the log into four equal pieces with one sure blow. But in this case, the Huckster is fomenting hateful divisiveness between the various factions of the GOP.

    Huckabee does the “divide”—and then we get to do the “conquer” in November.

    And beyond….

  • Huck is right about libertarians. I just can’t abide by a political party that was formed at the intersection of ‘likes to smoke pot,’ and ‘hates to pay taxes.’ Huck and I probably don’t see eye to eye on a lot of things, but we can agree that libertarians, especially faux Paulian libertarians, just plain suck.

  • I mean, he’s right. Libertarianism, while a fun concept, is wishful thinking, and a totally niave (sp) approach to dealing with a nation of 300 million people. It only works on a local level, and only if that “local level” is an isolated rural village.

  • I’m standing by my Huckabee pick! Funny that rhetoric which would help in the general hurts his chances of making it onto the ticket, though.

  • I couldn’t see anything in Huckabee’s comments that I disagreed with. I think he continues to be the only Republican candidate in recent memory who even acknowledges the concerns of working class people and frames his language accordingly. If you judge a person by the enemies he makes, I give him points for making enemies of the corporate funded stooges at the Cato Institute.

  • I keep seeing the headline as “Huckabee takes on the ‘heartless, callous, soulless’ LIBRARIANS” and thinking, wow, that’s bold. Librarians are tough MFers.

  • The thing I despite most about Mike Huckabee is that he puts a smiling face on a rather radical Christianity, disagrees with me on most issues – and then does stuff like this that makes me want to like him.

    The nicer part of me thinks that down deep, Huckabee is a pretty decent person who just happened to get a lot of political and social garbage poured into his head.

  • LMAO@farmgirl:

    I keep seeing the headline as “Huckabee takes on the ‘heartless, callous, soulless’ LIBRARIANS” and thinking, wow, that’s bold. Librarians are tough MFers.

    I saw this one as “apoplectic”:

    “The U.S. military ‘must remain apolitical at all times’ — but McCain didn’t get the memo”

  • While I agree with much of what Huckabee said, the man’s an idiot. What the hell Republican Party has he been watching?? They’ve ALWAYS been about the stuff he’s complaining about, and the whole Social Conservative stuff was just to trick the rubes into voting for them.

    And I agree with what the guy from Cato said, it seems that someone finally clued Huckabee in to what Republicans are really about and he imagines he’s discovered something new. It might just be a few years more that it begins to dawn on him that Republicans have been shitting on Social Conservatives the whole time, and that he’s actually more closely aligned with the Democrats. Dumbass.

  • Franklin @ #18: I can agree (or agree to disagree) with most of that, but I definitely need to address this:

    “A *little* competition between schools would be very beneficial, but every tiny step in that direction is basically crushed by the unions.”

    The reason the unions crush it is because you are dead wrong. Schooling isn’t a business, and treating it like one makes the problem worse, not better. Competition is all about upping efficiency by cutting costs. What happens when you cut education costs?

    First of all, you can’t hire competent and knowledgeable teachers, because they’ll all go to work elsewhere for higher wages and better benefits.

    Also, you can’t buy good textbooks or necessary lab equipment because the budget isn’t there.

    Then you have to cut classes and programs because you can’t afford them, and schools inevitably start with the vocational electives which are proven to pull kids in and keep them out of gangs and off drugs.

    And that’s just the tip of the iceberg. People like to talk up “competition” between schools, but stuff like this is always the only result you get when you put this flawed philosophy into practice.

    People who make the argument that we should introduce competition into our school system annoy me for two reasons. First, the fact is, schooling is an investment, not a business. The competition argument implicitly views schools as profit-makers, and children as a commodity. Both of those perspectives are fatally flawed. Expecting our schools to give us the best “product” at the lowest “cost” does not work; this is a case where we are saving for the future, and we only get out what we put in.

    But even more annoying than that is how the competition argument is always put forth by people who have no experience in education. They aren’t teachers or administrators or even janitorial staff. And yet they have the gall to lecture the rest of us on how this “let’s turn education into a capitalist boondoggle” would solve the entire problem, or at least would be a step in the right direction.

    Well, no it wouldn’t. And I know that because I’ve been part of the system. I have a teaching credential (secondary school; math). I’ve been in charge of a classroom, I’ve seen how the system works. And yes, it needs a lot of reforming. But competition between schools is **NOT** the way to go.

  • I don’t want to ever see Huck within 5 miles of the Oval Office (other than as a visitor), but his statement is basically healthy for American politics. It shows that the two main parties are not monolithic blocks. Huck is a Social Conservative in that he opposes abortion, gay marriage, etc, but is in favor of—wait. What do you call issues like this? Usually Economic Conservative means no taxes, Fiscal Conservative means balance the budget (extinct species in Wash. DC). Anti-Libertarian is too embracing. So we need a label.

    But anyway, I hope that most Americans are actually pretty mixed in their political beliefs, but thanks to two party discipline many can’t find candidates that fully represent their views. Just by mixing things up, Huck gives me hope.

  • Shade Tail-

    Your definition of competition is not my definition. The most common proposals involve parents being somehow allowed to choose the best school for their child. If a school exhibited all of those negative things you listed because they cut costs, parents wouldn’t choose that school. (I’m aware this basic ideal is heavily complicated … who gets in first when there are limited spots … what exactly happens to the school that is left with 3 kids … how is the government funding split based on kids).

    You seem to be of the opinion that the only problem is that we’re not throwing enough money at the problem. I’m sure that’s part of the problem, yes, but there has to be some accountability or that money just disappears into somebody’s pockets (just like throwing money anywhere, Iraq for example, ends up in pockets with nothing to show for it). What accountability do you have? Can you even get fired without having sex with a kid? In my experience, the answer is no.

    Now, having said that: what are your suggested reforms? I’m quite willing to listen and learn.

    -Franklin

  • 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.

    Um,… I’m confused.

    Huck is concerned this is where the Republican party is HEADING because of Libertarians?

    I’m at a loss for a zinger…

  • “The most common proposals involve parents being somehow allowed to choose the best school for their child.”

    Parents can already do that. I don’t know of any place in America where parents are legally obligated to send their kids to the school closest to their neighborhood. At most, a district will merely require students to live in one of the communities they serve. Of course, there are communities, mainly rural areas, that only have one school, but that is a completely different issue.

    “You seem to be of the opinion that the only problem is that we’re not throwing enough money at the problem.”

    Then, quite frankly, you didn’t actually read what I wrote. There is a difference between increasing or not cutting funding and merely “throwing money at the problem”. I never wrote that there should be no accountability for how the money is used.

    “Can you even get fired without having sex with a kid? In my experience, the answer is no.”

    Which connects nicely to my point about talking about this when you have no experience in education. It is true that teachers are not at-will employees, so a principal can not merely hand over a pink slip and have it end there. However, every district has a process for dealing with problem teachers. Usually, it requires documentation of the problem and meetings with higher-ups at the district office.

    The problem isn’t that it can’t be done, but that some principals are unwilling to spend the time on it. It requires keeping an eye and ear out for trouble, meeting with potential problem teachers and telling them the issues exist, writing up documentation of the problem and the actions taken, and then, if the problem isn’t resolved, having that meeting with the district higher-ups, taking all that documentation along to serve as evidence, making sure the teacher has a union rep present to keep things above board…etc.

    It isn’t as complex as that might seem. All it really takes to get the ball rolling is a quick informal conversation with the teacher in question and then jotting down a note about it, but some principals just don’t feel they have the time to put in the extra work. Or that teacher is a personal friend and so they show him/her favoritism. Or they’re actually too timid to go through with it. Or…so on and so on. I’ve always been lucky enough to work under very good principals who kept an open dialogue with me, but they’re still human like all the rest of us; I’ve heard some real horror stories from both parents and fellow teachers about principals who wouldn’t or couldn’t do their jobs.

    In my experience, the best inoculation against bad school faculty and administration is involvement by parents and communities. Yeah, those sex cases get lots and lots of attention from citizens and the media, but far too many parents and community leaders keep their distance the rest of the time. The best schools have active community outreach, and the best communities insist that their schools have an active outreach program. When that happens, parents are kept in the loop about what their kids are involved in, and they have the confidence to raise a clamor when something bad is happening.

    “what are your suggested reforms?”

    I would say, quite seriously, that **at least** 90% of all problems would be solved merely with greater parent/community participation. For example, in every class I taught, students whose parents came in to meet me personally were always in the top of the class. This was true across the board, even with my SADIE (non-English-speaking) students.

    The most recent school where I worked used to be rather infamous for having gang problems. When the old principal left, the new one went out to the community and asked for a couple police officers to patrol the school grounds. He also worked very closely with the PTA and made them a very important part of the school culture. These weren’t the only steps he took, but they were some of the more visible. And thanks to his efforts, gang trouble literally didn’t exist by the time I got a job there.

    And yes, more funding is also important. A state’s per-student funding is *the* leading indicator for how well students do there. The worst education states have the lowest per-student funding; the best have the highest. Of course there has to be accountability for how the money is spent, but that doesn’t lessen its importance. Probably the best state by this measure, odd as this might sound, is Utah. Not only do they have one of the highest per-student funding in the nation, but they manage it without *any* federal money (they refused all federal funding in order to opt out of No Child Left Behind, one of only two states to do so).

    I could go on for a very long time, but that is good for the basics. So I think I’ll stop here.

  • Economic libertarians can be defined as “I got mine.” I thought that was the motto of the Republican party (along with “Let’s scare the shit out of the uneducated so they won’t vote against us”). Huckabee is in the first stage of recovery, recognizing that he has been played as a fool by those economic libertarians, or perhaps, as a former minister he is just pissed off that the economic libertarians do a better job pulling the wool over the eyes of the educated than he and his “social conservative” pals do.

  • “It has always been the central Republican paradox… that the Party is comprised of the hyper libertarian business/corporate types, and the hyper authoritarian religious right.

    The fact that they are able to win a lot of elections is a cosmic mystery.”

    says Jim G…

    I just watched an interview with George Lakoff about this mystery. His explanation
    is pretty impressive, and if understood correctly – offers a way out.

    youtube dot com/watch?v=UqFxHTh98Ww

  • Comments are closed.