Jay Cost has a nice piece on PA’s changing political reality, over at realclearpolitics. He writes:
This statewide consistency masks major changes within the state. There have been two big developments in Pennsylvania’s political geography in the last 20 years that have counteracted each other – so that neither party has really gained a net benefit on the presidential level. However, these changes have cut decisively against Arlen Specter. I believe they are key to understanding why he left the GOP.
For the last twenty years or so, metropolitan Philadelphia in the southeast has been moving to the Democratic Party. However, this movement has so far been countered by movement toward the GOP in metro Pittsburgh in particular and the west in general. That, plus the population growth of the strongly Republican, exurban counties of Lancaster and York, means that the state as a whole still votes for President as it has for fifty years….metro Philadelphia continued its movement to the left while metro Pittsburgh moved to the right. McCain did better than Bush in five of the seven counties that make up the latter. He did no worse in Allegheny County, where the city of Pittsburgh is located. And he did only a point worse in heavily Republican Butler County, which has voted for the GOP in every election but 1964…
This part of the country [metro Western PA] was staunchly New Deal Democratic for decades following the Great Depression. Ronald Reagan lost every county of metro Pittsburgh save one in 1984. However, in the last twenty years the steel industry has all but disappeared – with only the Edgar Thompson Works and the Steelers insignia as the last vestiges of what used to be. As the industrial jobs have gone overseas, greater Pittsburgh has moved to the right. This is a movement that has also been exhibited in the tri-state area. George W. Bush and John McCain did well in southern and western Ohio, as well as West Virginia. It’s not coincidental that John McCain and Sarah Palin made their final stand here in Western PA…
In 1980 four of the five counties in Philadelphia voted for Reagan while five of the seven counties in metro Pittsburgh voted for Carter. This has basically been inverted in the last quarter century – and while neither party’s presidential candidate has been better off statewide for this shift, Arlen Specter has personally been on the losing end.
As an alternate explanation for Specter’s defection, it’s worth more than a look, but Cost’s analysis seems particularly useful for a broader perspective on changing demographic realities. Pittsburgh was one of the center’s of the New Deal coalition and, despite the loss of the steel industry which Cost highlights, is still an urban and blue-collar area. Yet, it’s becoming increasingly Republican (in 2008 McCain actually made net gains here). Reagan couldn’t crack the nut; McCain and Palin split it open. This sort of development isn’t trivial. To be sure, Democrats have numerous stories like this; of former Republican bastions, becoming increasingly Democratic. But, we should be thankful for small miracles, and looking to expand them into bigger miracles. The story of the 60′s and early 70′s was the story of the Republican Party peeling off various centerpieces of the New Deal coalition; in particular, they made enormous gains with Southerners and among white-Catholics, two groups that had nearly reflexively voted Democratic for more than half a century.
Remarkably, despite all of our recent losses, those two groups remain among the most stable elements of the Republican coalition. The reliably Republican Mainer left. The ethnic Catholic who’d beaten down doors to vote for Al Smith and JFK stayed. And it seems to me that if old Republican bastions are collapsing, while New Deal strongholds are becoming Republican firewalls, then it makes all kinds of sense to complete the journey. Why not make the New Deal coalition, the New Republican coalition? There are perils to this analogy; for obvious reasons, Republicans are unlikely to re-align black voters, another crucial element of FDR’s gains in the 30′s, into the Republican Party. And arguably the demographics that made up the New Deal coalition are a smaller chunk of the population today. But, there’s an awful lot of margin for error if your baseline is roughly 60-65% of the vote. The ethnic Catholic, the Solid South, and the Industrial North (such as it is) are still capable of forming the backbone of a strong coalition. We should focus on completing the transformation of places like Pittsburgh, to make that coalition a reality.
-
Matthew E. Miller can be contacted at Obilisk18@yahoo.com
April 29th, 2009 at 10:13 pm
Matthew,
You’re on a role. I think perhaps the “blacks” of the new “New Deal coalition” are hispanics. They have the potential anyway. They are trending right on the presidential level. A lot of folks don’t realize that blacks were solid Republican until the New Deal. In fact, Jesse Jackson’s Jr.’s 2nd Illinois district (which was majority black back then too) went for Hoover against FDR in 1932, at the height of the Depression.
But I look this idea, and it expands on what Pawlenty has talked about. I would say Southern whites, Catholics, hispanics, rural voters, and the Chamber of Commerce could be quite a potent coalition.
April 29th, 2009 at 10:18 pm
My concern though is how to keep this sort of coalition together. Urban and suburban Hispanics have very different wants and ideas then rural voters. I think that this New Republican Majority could work, but it would take a considerable and concerted effort to keep them together.
April 29th, 2009 at 10:21 pm
What I didn’t get from the article was a direct link to WHY these demographic and voting trends hurt Specter. Is his powerbase in Philly, I presume? Cost doesn’t make the specific connection as to why this would hurt Specter, as the state has remained stable on the surface, and his election is statewide.
April 29th, 2009 at 10:23 pm
Jonathan,
Likewise, Northern urban blacks, northern urban ethnics (who were often fleeing neighborhoods where blacks moved in) and rural southerners don’t have a lot of common on the surface. And yet they delivered the Whitehouse 7 out of 9 times from ’32 to ’68 and held the House for 40 some years.
April 29th, 2009 at 10:26 pm
#4:
True, but there had to be something that held those groups together, and I’m not sure what it was or what our version of it can be.
April 29th, 2009 at 10:26 pm
You guys are way too obsessed with demographics and culture. Perhaps a better way to get back to being competitive again would be to try being less crazy for a little while instead.
April 29th, 2009 at 10:27 pm
If I could create a candidate/ideology, in a laboratory, to bring this kind of coalition together, I’d make some sort of monster Pawlenty/Jindal hybrid. Catholic, urban, educated, blue-collar, a minority, mildly soothing (to industrial city voters) on trade, socially conservative but not caustic. Either one could make a go of it, but neither would be perfect alone.
April 29th, 2009 at 10:28 pm
Big S,
Demographics is destiny, dude.
………..And it’s really interesting.
April 29th, 2009 at 10:28 pm
MWS,
That’s only a sampling of the article. I cut out highlights. Cost does note that Specter’s from eastern Pennsylvania and as the Republican Party has shifted away from the Philly suburbs, Specter’s base has disappeared.
April 29th, 2009 at 10:32 pm
Jonathan,
There was no one single thing. Many southern whites voted against Grant and Sherman. Many Northern urbanites voted against Hoover. Many Catholics voted against the Republican Know Nothings. Many rural Midwesterners voted for the party of Bryan. So while there was no single link, there was a common thread that the Democratic party understood their kind, and their concerns, and protected their interests.
April 29th, 2009 at 10:33 pm
Matthew,
Do you see hispanics as a possible addition to this coalition? My sense is that the GOP must either bring them in, or suffer mightily as whites decline proportionally.
April 29th, 2009 at 10:37 pm
I would like to point out also that the New Deal Coalition was heterogenous on ideology. You had liberal Northerners and Southern conservatives and Western progressives all in one party. Also, after 1938 there was a Conservative Coalition on the Congressional level that thwarted much of what FDR wanted to do. Court-Packing, reorganizing the Executive Branch, etc., where all stopped by northern Republicans and Dixiecrats. Yet when push came to shove, the Dixiecrats (until 48), carried the banner of these liberal Democrat nominees, while Conservative Republicans helped men like Wilkie, and Dewey.
April 29th, 2009 at 10:38 pm
MWS,
Well, obviously Hispanics are located largely in the West, so that’s a bit trickier, if we’re going on the idea of a differently configured, but essentially similar, New Deal coalition. I’d envision this Republican Party, for instance, winning Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Michigan, but losing New Mexico, Nevada, and Colorado. But, obviously Hispanics have to play a role, or Florida becomes a big problem. I’m just not sure how to bring them in. Surely, though, it wouldn’t hurt to run a Catholic. Bush made gains among Hispanic Protestants in 2004, but was flat among Hispanic Catholics (presumably because Kerry was Catholic and Bush was Protestant).
April 29th, 2009 at 10:44 pm
To pull this off we’d have to alter our rhetoric on economic issues to a great degree. Beyond that we’d need to make some surprising drastic moves on policy to win credibility.
I see Blue Collar voters and ethnic whites (including Hispanics) as low hanging fruit that could be brought into the Republican coalition.
However we’d probably have to tick off a lot of activists of the Club for Growth sort to pull this off. If Obama’s extremism gives us enough latitude we may be in a place where economic conservatives will tolerate a change in rhetoric and a different approach to policy.
April 29th, 2009 at 10:46 pm
Matthew,
I think a Catholic stressing social issues would help (in a non-caustic way as you note). Family values are big. Not demagoguing immigration would be huge (and I say that as Buchanan’s most devoted disciple). I think we should get out in front of the what-to-do-with-illegal-immigrants thing in a positive way. It’s going to happen. We can make sure it happens the right way and be on the winning side of history. Stressing that conservative policies strengthen families and small businesses would help (many hispanics own or work for small businesses). Many of these immigrants come from countries where central government power means oppressive corruption. We can work with that.
As for where it helps on the map, hispanics are currently significant and/or rapidly growing in all the states you mention, plus North Carolina (not the gimme it once was) Illinois (I’m not giving up on my home state), and Iowa to some extent. If we do well enough with them, it could even bring CA into play once again!
April 29th, 2009 at 10:47 pm
Jonathan,
And that’s fine. I tend to think that the exact New Deal coalition, with its size and scope, is too much of a headache, and leads to an impossibly big-tent. Fortunately, (or unfortunately) we’re unlikely to carry 2/3′s of congressional districts, under ANY reconfiguration, so we’d be able to create a party which is ideologically heterogeneous, but not ideologically polar. For all my moaning over Specter, you’d be surprised how much diversity I’m willing to tolerate in a party. I think it’s perfectly reasonable to promote fairish trade, proish-union Republicans in Pennsylvania, Ohio, and Michigan. But, you don’t give away the whole bag, and you don’t waste time trying to integrate, into your coalition, the views of people who aren’t a part of the new majority you’re trying to build. You can have Collins’ and Snowe’s, but make them sit quietly in the corner.
April 29th, 2009 at 10:49 pm
Jonathan,
The northern liberal Democrats always made sure they put a Southern conservative on the ticket.
But I don’t think the coalition Matthew’s envisioning here need be so ideologically eclectic. There are common interests in all these groups, and one of them is the corrosive power of Washington on our economy and culture.
April 29th, 2009 at 10:50 pm
Doug,
Yes. A PEOPLE centered, as opposed to (impersonal) MARKET centered, conservatism.
April 29th, 2009 at 10:54 pm
I’d point out that’s what FDR did; he was happy to have the Dixiecrats, and he tried not to alienate them, but he found a way to get a big enough majority that, on most issues, he didn’t have to rely on them. He didn’t incorporate their views on race, for instance, into any of his speeches. We should do the same. I’ll tolerate Snowe and Collins, but seeing as how I can’t envision a majority that has some sort of Cornyn/Snowe, Texas/Maine axis, I’m not going to go out of way to accommodate them. I can imagine a majority with a Texas/Pennsylvania axis, so I’m willing to shift a bit on issues to make that a reality. And I’m not going to accept Republicans who properly belong in states like Maine, in the areas of that new coalition.
April 29th, 2009 at 10:55 pm
#16, I think Peter King is a good example of the sort of Republican we ought to run in Pennsylvania, Ohio and Michigan.
Peter King is a singular figure and that’s a shame because his Republican brand could work many other places.
April 29th, 2009 at 10:57 pm
#16:
We do have more ideological diversity within the party then the Democrats have that is true. Rudy Giuliani, Tom Tancredo, Christine Todd Whitman and Sarah Palin are all welcome within the Republican Party and there is a lot of good that comes from that. Unfortunetly, we have purists who belive a Tom Tancredo can get elected in Vermont or Maine. At the same time there are the Snowe’s of the world who want to be the new Nelson Rockefeller with his influence, but if they don’t get it, they take their ball and go home. Republicans as a party need to come to some sort of agreement about where to draw the line.
April 29th, 2009 at 11:02 pm
I would also note that the areas where Matthew is talking about is where almost all the northern pro-life Democrat congressmen are located, and I think that is telling. Off the top of my head, among non-southern pro-life Democrats, I think there are 2 in MN, 2 in MI, 2 in Ohio, 2 in IN, 2 in WV, and 2-3 in PA. And that’s pretty much it in the north.
April 29th, 2009 at 11:03 pm
Oh yeah, 2 pro-life Democrats from Illinois too.
April 29th, 2009 at 11:14 pm
The only Congressional district that McCain/Palin won in 2008 that John Kerry won in 2004 was Murtha’s district. Even Reagan wasn’t able pull off a feat like that in Western Pa. against Mondale.
April 29th, 2009 at 11:20 pm
Tommy Boy,
Interestingly enough, the Palin rally I went to was in Murtha’s District; Johnstown PA. It’s a small, economically depressed, city about an hour out of Pittsburgh. And I met a number of people there, some from as far as Altoona, who were Democrats voting for McCain, and some who’d been Democrats in recent decades.
April 29th, 2009 at 11:31 pm
If the black vote shifted so seamlessly to the Democrat Party, despite that as being the party with more than enough racism in that day, over primarily economic concerns, it shouldn’t be hard to get them back with a sincere effort. They already fit culturally more in the modern Republican Party (with its voters, not necessarily its leadership), which like Matthew covered is absolutely becoming more like the New Deal Democrats. So why not seal the deal with a real appeal to vote for a party that will protect their interests? Same goes for the Latino vote, which we could make for future blowouts in with some foresight.
There’s a lot of strong feelings nationwide against corrupt, money-splurging Washington politics in general. We ought to change how we see the good old class warfare battles, not as a fight between the people and the capitalists, but between the people (including many small business capitalists) and the powerful – the Washington interest groups, lobbyists, and corporate interests. We all know that the Democrat Party in particular is ridden with them. Our message will simmer for a bit amongst the people, but as soon as the Democrats start to head south, up will rise the discontent.
We also need to be careful to expand heavily in one direction, but shrink as little as possible in the other. We’d want to blow out Pittsburgh but split Philly, because you can’t win 0% of the suburbanite or technocrat vote and hope to win. Furthermore, we share common interests with them, with folks like local business owners, religious conservatives, and families. They ought to be with us.
April 29th, 2009 at 11:31 pm
Check out a map of Kentucky 1984 vs 2008. There were counties in the east that Mondale won (by a lot) that McCain took in a blowout.
April 29th, 2009 at 11:37 pm
Arkansas and West Virginia, too, were absolutely dominated by McCain. Even in 2004 they were talked about as swing states, with Bush heading the ticket.
April 29th, 2009 at 11:38 pm
What does everyone think about Huckabee’s chances with this kind of a coalition? While he’s obviously not Catholic, his blend of populism would seem to appeal to many in the industrialized North. And recent polls show that blacks and Hispanics view him more favorably than Romney and Palin (I can’t recall a recent poll including both Huck and Pawlenty), so he could potentially attract part of the New Deal coalition (blacks) AND part of the fastest-growing minority (Hispanics).
April 29th, 2009 at 11:45 pm
Anthony,
I think Huckabee has the potential to do well there. His key to winning is expanding his evangelical base from ’08 to include these natural, blue collar constituencies. I hoped he could bring them in last time, but he didn’t, and that made all the difference. If he can bring in northern Catholics and pro-gun union types, he can start to make this coalition a reality.
I also predict that we will not have all the front runners clamoring for the Tancredo vote next time out. I predict that at least one top tier candidate will take a fairly strong pro-immigrant stance, and others will hedge and be in the middle. At least one will be hard line anti- immigrant of course, but I think the issue will look a lot different next time out. Republicans have got to realize that hispanic immigrants (legally here or not) are not the enemy. I think more Republicans are starting to realize that.
April 29th, 2009 at 11:52 pm
I thought about Huckabee myself when reading Matthew’s commentary.
I was already with McCain last year, but Huckabee was definitely a positive surprise for me. The most sane supposed Bible-thumper I’d ever seen. I liked how he was able to incorporate a strong religious and populist background in a reasonable way. I don’t like the black mark he had from his attempts at prison reform as governor, but I’d be willing to accept that he’s likely learned his lesson there. I do like how he’s still economically conservative, but in a much more populist manner than the purists at the Club for Growth. He’d be more at home with the grassroots libertarian impulses against taxes, corruption, and government – policy on a personal level. That I like about him.
We could really do much worse than nominate Huckabee in 2012. He’d definitely expand the party without shrinking it much if at all – regardless of whether or not he could overwhelm an Obama edge.
April 30th, 2009 at 7:48 am
29-31 music to my ears.
Of course, I was thinking the same things, but it’s great to see others (besides MWS and me) commenting on it.
Huck & Ridge is a lock in PA, OH and maybe even MI.
7
Matthew,
Huck & Rubio (if he’s a Senator or FL gov) might do the trick. Rubio is fluent in English and Spanish. I’d be concerned about the perceived lack of experience that ticket would project, though.
Huck & Jeb: big pluses and minuses, but I think it’d work.
IL guy is tough competition, but I’m trying to keep pace…
April 30th, 2009 at 7:51 am
Despite being a Palinite, I could certainly live with a Huckabee-Ridge ticket and it would be good for the Midwest, but I doubt that the men would join forces.
April 30th, 2009 at 8:47 am
31 MPC—wow where to start.
You describe Huckabee as “The most sane supposed Bible-thumper I’d ever seen.” He wants a theocracy. He wants the the constitution rewritten to achieve that. Absolutely crazy. I believe strongly in the bible btw.
“I do like how he’s still economically conservative…” He grew Arkansas government a great deal, that isn’t economically conservative. He is in favor of Cap and Trade, that isn’t economically conservative. He begged the state legislature to pass a tax, any tax, just please increase the taxes. He was a long, long ways from being a fiscal conservative as a governor. His newly minted positions that he has discovered as a pundit are not the real Huckabee.
“He’d definitely expand the party without shrinking it much if at all…” I don’t agree with Alex and others who say that the socons are trying to purge out everyone else from the party. I have to say, though, that Huckabee would reduce the party to a regional, southern, evangelical party. I know that my wife and I would register libertarian if he got the nomination.
April 30th, 2009 at 8:59 am
“He wants a theocracy. He wants the the constitution rewritten to achieve that.” He may want a few ammendments to the Constitution, but I doubt he wants to make the country a theocratic Baptist state. That sounds a little paranoid.. He certainly has a few short-comings on the economy, (i.e. high gas taxes) but I really do not see Mr. Huckabee reducing my religious freedom.
April 30th, 2009 at 9:28 am
Ohio, I believe that you and I agree on probably all social issues. And I agree a great deal with Huckabee on them too. But he did say that the constitution should be amended to reflect God’s will. I don’t think that saying he wants a theocracy is a misrepresentation based on that. If he wanted to say that he wanted to amend the constitution to make America a more moral country then I would agree with him quite a bit. It can’t be considered merely a gaff on Huck’s part to say that the constitution should be amended to reflect God’s will. Those words are very specific, the thought was very specific. I am convinced he meant exactly what he said.
April 30th, 2009 at 10:26 am
DanL,
“It is impossible to rightly govern the world without God and Bible.”
-George Washington, First President and infamous theocrat
April 30th, 2009 at 10:27 am
DanL,
So what is your definition of theocracy, because people are even looser with that term than “socialism.”
April 30th, 2009 at 10:52 am
DanL calling Huck a theocrat is like a Huckfan calling Mitt a socialist because of Romneycare.
Huck was Governor of Arkansas for more than a decade, where’s the evidence of theocracy in Arkansas?
April 30th, 2009 at 10:54 am
34
“I know that my wife and I would register libertarian if he got the nomination.”
I guess Huckfans should leave the GOP if Mitt is the GOP nominee, we wouldn’t want to support a socialist.
April 30th, 2009 at 11:06 am
Traditionally conservatives have always believed that law must be rooted in a higher moral order, typically one that is native and organicly “grown” in that nation. For western civ, that means Christianity. That Christianity has informed our laws is a statement of fact. True conservatives (such as the founding fathers) recognize that as a good thing. That does not mean this is a theocracy. A true theocracy would enforce rules and regs of a particular religion or denomination, such as required mass attendence, coerced baptisms, etc….. True theocracy interferes with freedom of conscience and religion. But outlawing murder, usury, etc… is not theocracy.
April 30th, 2009 at 11:15 am
Specifically what amendments would Huckabee like to add?
April 30th, 2009 at 11:46 am
“Specifically what amendments would Huckabee like to add?” Gee, I don’t know, perhaps protecting Human Life. Mr. Huckabee’s religion is not the only religion that believe in GOD, the santity of Human Life and some basic morals. Does not our constitution already recognize GOD, by that standard we already live in a theocracy. I was once in a country where for a period of time, in a certain large region of that country, I was not allowed to ride a bus with people of different religions. You tell me which country (countries) that are theocratic. I might be naive, but I do not believe Mr. Huckabee would pass a law saying that you, me and a co-religionist of Mr. Huckabee could not ride the same bus. I am very grateful for the religion freedom I have in this country and while a few of my co-religionist might fear Mr. Huckabee would change that, I don’t. Is Mr. Huckabee perfect? Absolutely not, but according to my deffinition of theocrat, I do not think Mr. Huckabee fits that. He did not appear to act that way in Arkansas. I have not been to Arkansas myself, but I know at least one of my co-religionist who was there and wants to go back, so there cannot be that much religious discrimination there.
April 30th, 2009 at 12:12 pm
I was just wondering if he would support anything other than what Mitt strongly supports. Mitt campaigned very early for a marriage amendment (protecting traditional marriage), and a pro-life amendment. I can definitely support both of those with enthusiasm. But, as Mitt said on the pro-life amendment, we first have to change the hearts and minds of the electorate in order to be able to do that.
April 30th, 2009 at 12:44 pm
OK, than we are in agreement. For the record Mr. Romney is correct on both counts that we should try to pass these ammendments, but we also need to change hearts and minds to do so. I assume that these are the same types up ammendments that Mr. Huckabee (and many others) want to pass. Yes maybe, Mr. Huckabee or at least some of his camp members have a hidden agenda beyond that, but I do not see it and even if they did, we Americans would not stand for it.
April 30th, 2009 at 12:44 pm
MWS, I am a huge fan of Judeo-Christian values. I thank God that the founding fathers based the constitution on them. I would be in favor of an amendment to protect life. I just don’t trust Huck to be the one to interpret God’s will. Who’s interpretation of the Bible should be used now to amend the constitution? Catholic? Episcopalian? Jewish? Jehovah Witness? Mormon? Lutheran…?
MWS and mac, I find myself almost always agreeing with your posts on Social issues. It’s a shame that we are divided by candidates rather than issues.
mac, the one thing about Romney that causes me concern is his health care in MA. I find myself agreeing with Martha and Illinois on their take of that bill, but still wish that Mitt had vetoed it.
Finally, let me say why we would register libertarian if Huck got the nomination. Two reasons. The first is that I won’t tolerate big government republicans anymore. I would likely register libertarian if Huntsman or Crist got the nomination. I grudgingly backed Bush for a second term, but I won’t make the mistake again of selling out our future for the sake of party. Secondly, and you can deny this all you want, but Huck and many of his followers are bigots. I don’t think that either of you are. If any other candidate ran a campaign based on religious bigotry then they would have my disdain as well.
I realize that there could be arguments made against Romney on the small government issue. I still feel more comfortable with him or Palin on that front than Huck. Ideally Gregg or Sanford would be leading candidates and have a real chance of winning. I would likely support them if that were the case.
April 30th, 2009 at 12:50 pm
Mitt’s incredibly qualified, to start things off.
But perhaps Huckabee would be a candidate better suited to building the sort of coalition that right now makes so much sense and it would seem that the party is heading towards regardless. His communication skills and populist background would help the GOP make it’s case as the party of the people against Washington. His reasoned tone would avoid unnecessary alienation of suburbanites. So we grow the party by opening up to natural constituencies like minorities and the New Deal base, while not bleeding much of what’s left of the old Rockefeller Republican base. Mitt, bless his heart, while being a candidate that I see eye to eye with, couldn’t be as successful as Huckabee in expanding in those directions, because he’s not remotely populist.
Many of the hard feelings against Huckabee are motivated by religious friction. But he’s demonstrated clearly enough that he’s not an insane religious basher. Hearing his supporters on here convinces me that the vast majority of them aren’t, either.
He’s never been my number one candidate, but in some ways he’s the most logical choice there is – a well-spoken, reasonable populist conservative.
April 30th, 2009 at 1:03 pm
47 MPC, that was a well thought out response. But you reminded me of another objection that I have to Huckabee and that is populism. He uses it to bash businessmen and incite class warfare. Does that not remind you of another campaign this last fall? Populism and class warfare were major weapons in Obama’s arsenal as well. The country can do without them.
April 30th, 2009 at 1:15 pm
DanL,
I think you are reading way too much into what Huck said. I don’t think you can point to a single proposal he’s made that would harken the advent of a theocracy. But even if you thought that, you would have to assume that a majority of both houses of congress and the supreme court want a theocracy too.
April 30th, 2009 at 1:20 pm
MWS, I am not really worried about the theocracy thing. This all started when I reacted to this statement from MPC:
“The most sane supposed Bible-thumper I’d ever seen.”
I was only disagreeing with that statement, not trying to raise concerns.
April 30th, 2009 at 1:22 pm
DanL,
The kind of populism I support isn’t the anti-rich kind, but the kind that opposes those who use their power or access to power to gain unfair advantage (such as sweetheart bailouts). All good capitalists should support that kind of populism, as well as libertarians. A powerful government can and will pick winners and losers, largely based on who has the dough to buy influence. This is a populism that can unite union members, small business owners, federalists, libertarians, and true capitalists.
So if I attack the “elite” I’m not talking about rich people per se, but those who use their power or access to big government to enrich themselves at the expense of others.
April 30th, 2009 at 1:27 pm
Huckabee attacked large, powerful corporations, not free enterprise in general.
And as to the fact that Obama (and McCain) did the same, I’d say “why not”? People have to know that you are to govern in their interests. If leaders don’t govern in the popular interest, it’s to the benefit of some corporation or industry. Hence our problem with lobbyists. That’s a fair contrast to draw, IMO.
I personally want to know that our leaders are OUR leaders, not the lackeys of some wealthy interests. People sure don’t place high degrees of trust in our party to do that, at the moment.
April 30th, 2009 at 1:27 pm
46
DanL
“MWS and mac, I find myself almost always agreeing with your posts on Social issues. It’s a shame that we are divided by candidates rather than issues.”
Thanks for the sentiment, because Mitt & Mike fans often agree on those issues I’ve ‘gone hoarse’ trying to promote an alliance between the two. However, you touched on another issue, your lack of trust in Mike. I think I can speak for MWS, our biggest concern with Mitt is trust, trusting that his autumn conversion to socon causes is authentic.
That’s why, for me, an alliance with Mike would be the only way I’d enthusiatically support Mitt, although I’d probably vote for him regardless (a Mitt & Rudy ticket would give me pause).
If Mitt won the nomination, his diehard fans would be outraged if Huckfans stayed home or changed affiliation. I’ve got a ton of respect for Mitt’s talent and record of achievement, but given his mixed record on social issues and big government (romneycare and ‘fee’ hikes) when Mittfans threaten to bolt the GOP over a Mike candidacy, it’s pretty frustrating to say the least.
47
MPC
I love it, but are you feeling okay? Any recent head trauma? Just kidding, I’d better just keep my mouth shut and hope others start to see it like you.
April 30th, 2009 at 1:28 pm
MPC – why are you ignoring that Mitt has a 55 – 36 favorable/unfavorable ranking now? That is very strong, and is considerably stronger than Obama’s (using the same polling firm).
Have you forgotten, Huckabee has hardly any support in most states? He has no chance whatsoever against Obama.
April 30th, 2009 at 1:30 pm
51
MWS,
As usual, well said.
April 30th, 2009 at 1:33 pm
MWS,
Bingo! A true libertarianism is populist in nature, against entrenched powers and interests – the cheaters in the game. Libertarianism supports free enterprise, personal initiative, and individual liberty within society, not enterprise that parades as free while it deals with our tax dollars.
April 30th, 2009 at 1:34 pm
54
“Huckabee has hardly any support in most states?”
Huck could win all the states W won plus maybe PA, WI and MI. If the religion thing doesn’t get resolved I suppose it’s possible he could lose Utah, but I hope amends can be made.
April 30th, 2009 at 1:39 pm
mac,
Hahaha – no, I just really was impressed by Matthew’s analysis, and the light went off in my head with Huckabee’s name by it
There are plenty of political impulses I have that would lead me to support candidates like Huckabee. The important thing is that he fits that bill for a majority of voters.
April 30th, 2009 at 1:48 pm
If Huckabee keeps the Bush/McCain states and swings the Industrial North, it would be game over for the Democrats. The South, Midwest, and Industrial North is a huge bloc of support.
April 30th, 2009 at 1:50 pm
MWS, I agree with your sentiments in 51. And that is why we agree about Specter and the right of the people to primary against guys like him. The problem is that Huckabee goes well beyond that. His brand of populism is exemplified by his attack on Romney when Huck compared him to the boss that laid you off…Romney=heartless AIG exec, Huck=bowling buddy, union brother who will go on strike with you.
April 30th, 2009 at 1:53 pm
I think we’re on to something here, guys.
Mike, Mitt, Sarah, Tim, Bobby, Jim, you guys taking notes?
April 30th, 2009 at 1:55 pm
DanL,
That’s typical campaign posturing, not policy. Reagan wore a cowboy hat, but noone thought he was a cowboy (well, maybe the Kremlin….).
April 30th, 2009 at 1:58 pm
mac, I understand and empathize with your frustration over the party bolting threats. All I can say is that if Huck hadn’t played the religion card then I probably would react differently to him. I went ahead and voted for McCain even though I disagreed with him a more than I did Huck. If the GOP is willing to condone that kind of bigotry, though, then I find myself without a home. During the election I didn’t know that Huck supported cap and trade, and I admit that I gave McCain a pass on it. I just won’t do that anymore.
I appreciate your attempts to reach across the aisle and create a Mitt/Mike team. Honestly, I find myself wishing that both would drop out and support Gregg or Sanford, then maybe we could all put the rancor behind us and unite. That is a pipe dream though.
April 30th, 2009 at 1:59 pm
Not to put too fine a point on it, but I think the populism I proposed in 51 is Huck’s kind. He railed against excessive power, not wealth (other than tweaking Romney as DanL mentioned). He railed againt puting markets ahead of people, and thinks that markets should serve people, not the other way around. Yes, he baited Romney a couple times for his wealth, but that doesn’t translate into policy. His true populism was anti-power, not anti-wealth.
April 30th, 2009 at 2:01 pm
DanL,
There will always be rancor in a hotly contested primary. If Gregg and Sanford were somehow the two front runners in 2012, then it would be the Gregg and Sanford wars around here.
April 30th, 2009 at 2:04 pm
DanL,
As for the bigotry thing, I disagree. For the vast majority of Huck supporters, I think Romney’s Mormonism is of little to no concern. Yes, Mormons and Baptists battle on the evangelism front, but not in politics. Yes, there was a vocal minority of Huck supporters online who bashed Romney for his faith. I don’t know if that was on “principle” or a tactic, but I think they are the exception. The only cheapshot I think Huck himself took was when he wondered alond about the Jesus and Satan as brothers thing.
April 30th, 2009 at 2:06 pm
MWS, yes there is always anger in primaries. I don’t think that there would be more than one ficon in the primary with a strong following. I think that a lot of us could get behind such a person right now considering the socialization of America that we are experiencing.
Gotta go do some yard work. I’ll check in later.
April 30th, 2009 at 2:25 pm
66
“The only cheapshot I think Huck himself took was when he wondered alond about the Jesus and Satan as brothers thing.”
I still think that was just stupid, not a cheap shot. I still beleive that the reporter glossed himself as an LDS expert and Huck stupidly asked that question. Either way, it’s not good, but in my book a stupid comment is better than a cheap shot.
Oh well, the rest is history.
April 30th, 2009 at 2:35 pm
mac,
Could be. Nobody’s perfect.