Brief comment on Huckabee's victory

This is a post that I would prefer not to write, but in grown-up politics, you get used to the taste of your own medicine.

On October 1st, Cap'n Ed published a post I completely agreed with, titled Christian Conservatives for Hillary. Prompted by the news that "the chance that the Republican party might pick Rudolph Giuliani as its presidential nominee despite his support for abortion rights [has prompted] a coalition of influential Christian conservatives ... [to] threaten[] to back a third-party candidate in an attempt to stop him," Ed lamented that "[w]hen parties fall out of power, they tend to go through a battle between Puritans and Big Tenters. Inevitably, when Puritans control the debate, they tend to ensure a longer term in the wilderness, and when they don't, they threaten to leave." American politics are obstinately bipolar, third parties don't and shouldn't work, and, said Ed, "Republicans don't need petulance from its internal factions. Primaries exist for these groups to make their best case to the voters, and the voters decide which candidate fits their agendas. Threatening to take one's ball and go home doesn't build respect or confidence in any faction.... The Christian Right needs to find a primary candidate to endorse and make its best case -- and then make a mature and intelligent decision about the general election if they lose the primaries." A "mature decision," it should not require saying, means supporting the candidate.

In other words, I thought at the time (and alas failed to write), Ed was saying (and I agreed) that if evangelicals walk, they are RINOs. Not in the common sense of the term as a pejorative slang for moderates, but in the sense that they are Republicans when the party marches to their drum, and not when not. In sum, Ed concluded, if evangelicals fail to "get Huckabee nominated within the system, then the faction should acknowledge that the party made a different choice and support the end result of the primary process."

Yesterday's results in Iowa have raised the unpalatable prospect (if not the likelihood) that the shoe could be on the other foot. I've made clear my disdain for Huckabee - who I view as a big government populist with an added dollop of misogyny (sorry, Ruth Anne). Nevertheless, I agreed with what Ed wrote in October and I agree with it now: if evangelicals stay home in a fit of pique over the party nominating someone from another part of the big tent, and we lose the election as a result, I will be scathing in my criticism of them. There is a very simple reality in this election: we may not know who the Democratic nominee is with specificity, but we do know what the possible options are, we know what they each believe, so we know enough to say that no one who would support any of them - and staying at home is as much supporting them as punching a card for them - can lay claim to being a Republican (despite Obama's claims to have picked up "republican votes").

But that being so, I would be remiss if I exempted myself from it. In the run up to and wake of Iowa, I have heard Republicans who share my view of Huckabee say that they will not vote for him in the fall. Which is to say (even if they won't say it), they will support Hillary or Obama, whichever is the dem nominee. Only Nixon could go to China, so perhaps it's necessary for me to borrow My Cap'n's words and say the following:

When parties fall out of power, they tend to go through a battle between Puritans and Big Tenters. Inevitably, when Puritans control the debate, they tend to ensure a longer term in the wilderness, and when they don't, they threaten to leave. The Republican party doesn't need petulance from its internal factions. In my humble opinion, for those groups who call the big tent home - and those who don't but ought to if they could manage to get a grip on reality - when you cut our throats, you cut all of our throats, including your own. Primaries exist for people with our views to make their best case to the voters, and the voters decide which candidate fits their agendas. Threatening to take one's ball and go home doesn't build respect or confidence in any faction.

Those who oppose Huckabee - myself included - need to find a primary candidate to support endorse and make our best case -- and then make a mature and intelligent decision about the general election if we lose the primaries. At a minimum, if one involves oneself in the primary, one morally commits oneself to abiding by the outcome. That's the bond of trust that is a prerequisite to a primary system: it's a kind of social contract wherein I expect you to honor the result if it goes my way and you thus legitimately expet me to honor the result if it goes your way. If we nonhucks fail to stop Huckabee from being nominated within the system, then we should acknowledge that the party made a different choice and support the end result of the primary process.

Post facto:
The value of losing (1/5/08)
So - McCain, then? (1/30/2008)
Spanners in the works (5/12/08)
The GOP universe (11/7/08) (distinguished)