Home › Blogs › Kevin Boyd's blog ›

Huckabee's Recipe For Disaster

by Kevin Boyd | May 28, 2008 at 1:49 PM
in

Mike Huckabee gave a recent interview to the Huffington Post where he outlined his vision for the Republican Party:

What can the party do to reverse course?

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.

Just because fiscal conservatives and most libertarians oppose big government doesn't mean they want to throw people on the streets, have anarchy in the streets, and eliminate schools. Most fiscal conservatives/libertarians believe maintaining law and order is one of the very few things government should be doing. Most fiscal conservatives/libertarians believe private charity and the private sector are the most efficent means to deliver services like healthcare and education because government bureaucracies are inefficent, consume much of the resources that can be used to help the receipents, require burdensome taxation, and often do not have the best interests of the receipents at heart. Most conservatives/libertarians believe that there should be a safety net for those among us who truly cannot work or are old.

Finally, have the failures of 2006 demonstrated to Huckabee the need to include conservatives/libertarians in the GOP fold. Fiscal conservatives and libertarians stayed home or defected to the Democrats over excessive spending, government waste, and intrusive government in 2006 and Huckabee wants to continue this. More "compassionate conservatism" will not win elections for Republicans. Only a platform embodying the principles of limited government, Federalism, a strong national defense, and defending traditional values will put us back into power.

Taking Huckabee's advice would destroy the conservative movement.

5
Your rating: None Average: 5 (2 votes)

Comments

Good grief

Submitted by prairiefreedom on Wed, 05/28/2008 - 17:51.

Huckabee's statement embodies the thought of many so-called "conservatives" this day in age. It could be described as a conservatism of convenience: many dislike big government as long as it remains distant and separate from themselves but once individual conservatives find that they or someone they know "needs" these programs the programs suddenly become permissible. The conservatism of convenience does not challenge the fundamental nature of these programs nor does it question its philosophical and practical acceptability. For instance, examine the last sentences of the first paragraph of Huckabee's statement:

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.

Note his premise in the last sentence: the programs are not objectionable and it's the duty of Republican's duty to ensure they are properly financed*. No discussion of whether the programs should exist in the first place, and any mention of conservative principle by the former Arkansas governor rests in ad hominem attacks against the mantra. 

The main challenge conservatives face going forward appears to be that these government programs became sacred cows because the MSM and the education system preached as such for decades, causing many to object to their repeal because of the harmful effects it would have on the downtrodden. The SCHIP debate from last Fall encapsulates this: many congressional Republicans did not question the dubious program's existence but just advocated its continuance at present funding and coverage levels. What happened to standing for limited government, federalism, free markets, and fiscal responsibility? Are even the staunchest conservatives wed to the conservatisim of convenience?

The next breed of conservatism should reject the portrait that we are miserly and envisioning a return back to the 1950's and should proffer the vision that we seek a wholesale reinstatement of man's default condition: freedom, personal responsibility, local control, and civic vitality and health. These are qualities that do not arise from a government program (regardless of which party proposes or implements it) but from the ingenuity and capabilities of the people.

 (apologies if this post is rambling in nature--it's just about supper time...)

*In fact, notice the distinction Huckabee makes between Republicanism and conservativism; the former seems to be the more responsible and compassionate whereas the latter is the unrealistic and greedy of the two. One wonders what his broader point is with this act.