Posted by
Mark Hansbauer on Monday, February 11, 2008 12:40:52 PM
Editorial Rule 1: Words and phrases flagged in red are, in my opinion, vague, ambiguous, or otherwise problematic. But for that they are not inadmissible in political discourse. As you may surmise, they are the lifeblood of such discourse.
A reader of this blog asked yours truly a question so immediate and excellent that I felt compelled to answer it as an interlude between the topics I was previously discussing.
Q: "What the bleep is Huckabee after? For sure, he put in an awesome show in this weekend's primaries."
A: Huckabee had already reached goal one: to force Romney out of the race. This was the necessary condition for goal two: to amass as many delegates as he can. This begs the question: what for? Let us work from the following premise: it does not hurt to stay in the race. What then?
First, staying in and earning delegates gives Huckabee prominence in the GOP for this election cycle. He will have, if nothing else, a major spot in the speaker lineup at the convention. To see what this could mean, recall that Obama had a major spot in the 2004 Democratic convention; it was there that his presidential candidacy was presaged. Huckabee is no Obama, but Huck will have what Obama then did not have: an army of delegates pledged to his name. Huck will be considered, and he will consider himself, as speaking for this group. In speaking for this group, of course, as surely as ambition drives politicians, Huck will be speaking for himself, for his future in politics.
Second, and this is so obvious only yours truly could think he was the first to think of it, earning delegates in the conservative states builds the case for Huck as VP nominee. McCain needs conservative credentials, so why not borrow them from Huck? Huck has denied that he is aiming for VP, but it is so obviously a potential benefit that no self-respecting politician (oxymoron?) would ignore it. (In point of fact, Huck has to borrow his conservative credentials, so who is the ultimate creditor here? The GOP base. But, if Huck is not conservative and neither is McCain, then isn't it good money being thrown after bad?)
Third, the further Huck goes in amassing delegates, the better known he becomes; the better known he becomes, the better organized he can become in the GOP at the state level. How long did it take to build the McCain machine (such as it is) in New Hampshire, South Carolina, Florida, California, et. al.? The 2000 and 2008 primary cycles? Could Huckabee be thinking of laying the foundation for 2012? Remember: it does not hurt a politician to be thinking now of the next election cycle.
We can also think of Huck's longevity in this campaign cycle from the point of view of the evangelicals. They were without a home this election season until Huck came along. It has taken several months for them to rally behind Huck. (Granted, the rallying is far from unanimous, but taking out Romney has left evangelicals with no better choice than Huckabee.) The recent swell of votes, I feel safe in saying, has primarily been the work of "Huck's Army," the evangelical volunteers who have been stumping for Huck in the holy halls of protestant churches for months. I heard a report on National Public Radio about three months ago that described "Huck's Army" as consisting especially of younger evangelicals who do not see eye-to-eye with the old guard on such issues as taxes, entitlement spending, and the environment. If this report is to be trusted, and it is often prudent to believe the worst, then we can conjecture that Huck is at the crest of a movement to form a moderate-liberal wing within the evangelical camp. The questions for this election cycle then become tactical: Are the conservative evangelicals going along because Huck is evangelical? What are they putting aside in terms of their political principles?
And we can further conjecture that, if there are evangelicals to start a move to the left, then there is already a liberal-moderate subgroup of evangelicals. The questions then become strategic: How large will it grow? How liberal might it become? How can it be stopped or turned in the right direction? To the extent that this movement is bringing the moderate-liberal evangelical out of the closet, or worse, converting some evangelicals to the moderate-liberal side, henceforth the GOP cannot assume that "evangelical" equals "conservative."
It would be comforting to chortle, "If they ain't conservative, they ain't evangelical." But what makes an evangelical? Limiting ourselves to the temporal side of the answer, evangelicals communicate with zeal and borrowed authority. This is what has made them very effective in politics. Imagine just a small percentage of this force going to the center or left and you have two problems: (1) the Democrats could have more votes and (2) the evangelical camp is no longer unified, which means the conservative evangelicals have to spend precious time and money in fighting intra-camp battles. Thus, any perceptible shift to the center or left within the evangelical camp is yet another temptation for the GOP to shift in the same direction. Strategies anyone?