So it has come to this. Three candidates who have won a state and could plausibly be the nominee: John McCain, Mitt Romney, and Mike Huckabee. Rudy Giuliani seems ready to fold-up if he is handed a devastating third or fourth in Florida. Ron Paul is there to push the Republicans on libertarian issues akin to what Duncan Hunter and Tom Tancredo did to move the current Republican candidates to the right on immigration. While I admire all three frontrunners, each represents a leg of the party stool in a singular fashion. If Hillary Clinton is the nominee, Republicans will do well to become very big tent Republicans quickly.
John McCain is the defense conservative’s dream candidate. Tough on terror and the early supporter of the surge, he presents a statesmanship that wavers between the honor of who John McCain is and the rascally look he gets that makes me fear he might just knee Mitt Romney in the side of the leg and tell him that was learned in the naval academy. But for McCain, he has voted pro-life while alientating pro-lifers, played fast and loose with social conservatives, and been too much of a compromiser on issues Democrats like Russ Feingold and Ted Kennedy hold dear. First leg.
Mitt Romney is the economic conservative’s dream candidate. Numbers, figures, and calculations seem to be done with little thought, but then one gets the impression it doesn’t require much from Mitt. A successful businessman and entrepeneur, he turned the Olympics around and fought off “Taxachusetts.” Michigan’s win shows the confidence that Republicans have in his experience. And yet, as I have previously written about, Mitt Romney has been transformed from the pro-gun control, pro-choice (albeit measured), pro-gay “rights”, who pandered to Mass. liberals by disavowing Reagan-Bush. Defense conservatives probably like his tough talk and how he handled foreign leaders coming into his state to denounce the U.S. at Harvard, but social conservatives (and indeed many) wonder about the genuiness of every conversion. Plus, though I’ll credit Romney for this, the likeability factor waned greatly when he attacked two well-liked candidates in the war hero (McCain) and the regular Joe pastor-governor (Huckabee). Second leg.
Mike Huckabee is the social conservative’s dream and a flat-taxer and common guy to boot. One gets the impression that social issues are part of the very core of his being, so much so that he equates amending the Constitution to preserve traditional marriage and the sanctity of human life to amendments that allowed for women’s suffrage and the death knell of slavery. Plus, Huckabee is able to finesse faith issues in such a way that resounds with not only people of faith but makes people understand its importance to him and the country. However, Huckabee seems to scare defense conservatives with the folksy language of writing that Bin Laden played Brer Rabbit and the bad analogy about the Easter Eggs not being found as there may still be undiscovered weapons of mass destruction. By not attacking Romney’s relatively similar record on taxes, Huckabee allowed himself to be painted as a tax-and-spend liberal Republican, thereby making him unacceptable to many economic conservatives. Third leg.
Three legs of the stool. Three candidates. Every Republican must vote his heart and conscience and decide which of the issues are most important and how much the candidate measures up on the other two legs. Plus, as we saw with the perfect-on-paper Fred Thompson, we are choosing a person, not a list of issues. Rudy Giuliani saw that missing a complete leg of the stool or having a relatively short leg on social issues is devastating. The question will be who can combine leadership with the most acceptable big tent.
Four things must happen if Republicans are to maintain the White House: 1) Romney or McCain needs to balance the ticket with a Huckabee who may pick up enough Southern states to play kingmaker at the convention. 2) If it’s McCain, the Republicans must establish a platform that can be strongly established, and McCain must somehow convince conservatives that the one thing he will buck is his own penchant to play the maverick. 3) If it’s Romney, we need more of last night’s MSNBC debate–genuineness, an unwillingness to hit fellow Republicans below the belt while instead attacking Clinton, and a bit of humility to come across as a regular guy instead of the know-it-all businessman.
Most importantly, the stool will be complete if the party is willing to sit on it despite any imperfections in the design. If we don’t come together and agree to sit on that stool, the Democrats will. A design we can live with is better than one which is fatally flawed.
The problem is that the party stool is defective. Essentially what the GOP has done is to completely alienate the small-government, non-interventionist, low taxes, and freedom members of the party, and replaced them with neoconservative, pro-war, anti-civil liberties, and anti-freedom candidates. There are some extremely deep flaws that all three of the candidates you named share: they are really liberals who are running for the GOP nomination. Sure, it seemed obvious with Rudy Giuliani, being a pro-war, social liberal, but the lesser degrees are in Huckabee with his compassionate socialism programs and his poor fiscal responsibility, or McCain with his attitude of sticking it out in Iraq no matter the cost even though it would be another 100 years and the bankruptcy of the country, or Romney with his flakey, do whatever it takes to get the nomination attitude which includes flip-flopping on every major issue.
The entire GOP is weak because they have become liberals (neoconservatives). That’s why any one of those three you named would fail in the general election.
Don’t you think, however, that Ron Paul is actually stronger on every one of these stool legs than any of the other three candidates (maybe less so on “defense” because of his anti-interventionist stand)? He’s also a veteran, very concerned about defending our country. He’s unbelievably economically conservative, and he’s more socially conservative than Huckabee (and a Christian as well).
Any thoughts?
My thoughts are that social conservatism implies or entails a good measure of national security conservatism and fiscal conservatism. I.e., that’s priority number one. Clearly.
Hence Mike Huckabee is my preferred candidate who is being given virtually no chance. And if that’s the way it goes, well so be it.
And if the GOP loses to the Dems in the presidential election and the Supreme Court turns left and there are tax hikes and other leftist policies being instituted, then so be it. What is that to me? After all, my citizenship is in heaven. I/we seek to do earthly good, but I/we realize that any transformation, both institutionally and individually, is ultimately up to God.
Just keep fighting the good fight and remain standing firm.
I agree with your assessment that the GOP has become big-government in many of its policies with higher and higher taxes. There is a little streak of the libertarian in me; however, I part ways with your assessment that the current administration is “anti-civil liberties.” There is a case to be made for the GOP losing much fiscal responsibility and acting like liberals; the argument weakens when there it comes to domestic protection. By the way, though I disagree with many of Ron Paul’s points, Tancredo on immigration, Hunter on China, Huckabee on social issues, and Paul on limited government have ultimately been helpful. The three may not be acceptable to you, but do you believe that Paul could capture the general election?
Truth Unites…and Divides,
My strongest pull is towards Mike Huckabee. I supported him and will continue to do so. I think it’s a non-sequitur argument though to believe that social conservatism necessarily implies being strong on defense. Added into the complication is not a person’s heart but also experience, judgment, and a clear foreign policy paradigm. I don’t mean to imply that Huckabee lacks all of these but simply to say that being a social conservative doesn’t mean that one’s necessarily strong on defense. As to the second point, I agree that our ultimate citizenship is not of this earth; that doesn’t mean though that we ought not to strive to teach all men what Christ has taught. I wonder if you don’t fall into the ditch by denying our duty as citizens to transform our culture by shrugging the shoulders and asking, “What is that to me?” if the next Supreme Court justice reverses the progress made at chipping away on Roe v. Wade.
I think there’s a healthy balance one can keep by saying, “I will work to choose the best candidate and push for social change. However, at the end of the day, my citizenship is not of this earth.”
I think it is right to both understand our citizenship is in Heaven, in a city with foundations, all the while–in love–pointing others to the city with foundations. We do not have the luxury of getting out of the fight and letting it go wherever the broad path leads. What if Carey had the “What is that to me” attitude? India would still be burning widows with their husbands. And we will still kill babies…
Huckabee is not going to win anything. Rudy is probably – but not yet necessarily – done. So it would appear to be McCain or Romney.
Personally I don’t think McCain can hold up under Republican scrutiny. He wins when non-Republicans can vote for him but we have to see if he win in a Republican primary where only Republicans vote. If they somehow nominate him, he will lost a big part of his base. He will also win a significant number of Democratic and Independent votes so the issue could be close anyway. Maybe he can win, maybe not but he will not be a popular President with Republicans no matter. There are a lot of skeletons in McCain’s closet. His biggest asset to me is the support of Joe Lieberthal. I like Joe even if he is a liberal.
Romney is best qualifed to be president but not necessarily a presidential candidate. He needs some work on the campaign trail. But, he can win and very likely will, win. My feeling is he will win the nomination and the election.
I can tell by how much the Democrats don’t want him to be the nominee by the way the NY Times is attacking him. lol Hey, they just Love Hillary and Johnny.
That should tell you something right there.
Joey
For articles of interest on many subjects:
http://journals.aol.com/chonors686/JoeyPage1
I part ways with your assessment that the current administration is “anti-civil liberties”.
Oh? How exactly do you explain the Patriot act? The veteran’s disarmament act? The brief in support of the D.C. gun ban? The illegal wiretapping of american citizens? The declaring of american citizens as enemy combatants held indefinitely without trial or any other fourth amendment protections? The torture of prisoners?
And yes, I for one do believe he can and will capture the nomination. And if you actually did mean to say the general election then absolutely – he’s the ONLY republican candidate that can win in November. The rest will be utterly outflanked by Hillary, but she doesn’t have a prayer against Ron.
I have to agree with Brian. Ron Paul is the most conservative candidate. Many dismiss him because he is libertarian, but he does not embrace the radical views of some libertarian. He is consisently conservative on the moral issues and wants to bring the federal government back in line with our constitution. George Bush has made government so large, and Congress and Senate are voting for laws behind our back that will bring our nation to tyranny. To be a libertarian does not mean you are opposed to government but you are opposed to less government intrusion. I believe that if the GOP stays on the same course it will be no different than the democratic party. If you look at the history of classic liberalism it embraces many of the conservative elements of Republicanism. The democratic party is not liberal but socialist, and the frontrunners in the Republican race are not far from that ideology. Ron has raised more money than Hillary, but the GOP snubs him along with the so-called fair and balanced reporting of FOX NEWS. I believe the GOP is afraid of Paul because he would destroy their power base. Perhaps it is time to rid the Republican party of its power based approach to government. If more Christians would have looked closer at him and supported him he could have been farther ahead in the primaries. Unfortunetly many so-called evangelicals do not have a Chrisitian world view, so they vote for anyone who looks good. Perhaps if Hillary becomes President, we get what we deserve.
I think there’s a healthy balance one can keep by saying, “I will work to choose the best candidate and push for social change. However, at the end of the day, my citizenship is not of this earth.”
Actually, the substance of this is precisely what I was saying. Just not in the form that you would have liked.
So we’re in complete agreement. Other than stylistic concerns.
Dear, “Truth Unites…and Divides,”
“My thoughts are that social conservatism implies or entails a good measure of national security conservatism and fiscal conservatism. I.e., that’s priority number one. Clearly.”
I kind of agree. However, it’s ironic that you support Huckabee because in his case his social conservatism has not entailed fiscal conservatism. He’s a “pro-life, pro-gun liberal” when it comes to economics, and I have no confidence in his ability to tackle economic issues. I mean, has he ever even uttered the words “monetary policy,” “inflation,” or “fiat money”?
“And if the GOP loses to the Dems in the presidential election and the Supreme Court turns left and there are tax hikes and other leftist policies being instituted, then so be it. What is that to me? After all, my citizenship is in heaven.”
Brother, I profoundly disagree with you. Yes, the results are to be accepted as the plan of God. He is sovereign. But the results aren’t in yet from our perspective! And even if they turn out for the worse, “accepting” them from God doesn’t mean condoning them or not striving to fight against them from a human perspective.
“What’s that to me?” Unless you move to another country, it means everything! If more than half of your paycheck goes to taxes (to pay for some godless universal health care plan), suddenly you don’t have as much disposable income to support your family, church, and ministries of your choice.
If the government never reverses Roe v. Wade, that means millions more babies will die. If suddenly praying in public becomes illegal, that is “something to you.”
Our country is sliding into oblivion, and though God will do what glorifies him most, from my limited human perspective I will fight for what I know is right!
Ron Paul 2008
Caleb the Ron Paul Supporter who profoundly disagrees with me:
Please read the following essay to gain greater understanding of what I’m referring to when I say that God is sovereign as to what, when, whether, and how social transformation takes place in the culture.
http://www.desiringgod.org/media/pdf/fasting_for_the_little_ones.pdf
Pax.
Huckabee. Then any GOP Candidate. Christ first and always.
Very good article. I agree. Once this primary is settled, we must unite. One imperfect, “one- leg- of- the- stool” candidate must defeat the hard core socialism of the current democratic party. If we unite, We the People, will hold up the rest of the stool. If we don’t…. we’re in trouble, folks.
Heaven? yep. But once there, we will be judged for our actions here on earth.
[...] friend of mine facebooked me this link to MenLikeTreesWalking where the author draws the analogy of a three legged stool. Fiscal Conservative, Social [...]