The fair tax could be made more progressive by choosing different rates for different items. For example, charge low rates for goods with positive externalities (vaccines, mass transit tickets, alternative energy consumption and infrastructure). Charge higher rates for items with negative externalities (alcohol and tobacco, gasoline, factory farm meat). You could also charge lower tax rates for basic necessities (non-meat food, one-week exemption for clothing prior to school). If the fair tax prebate were indexed to a more family-friendly index and items were taxed at different rates, it could be made more progressive. I haven’t seen any of that in Huckabee’s proposal, and I don’t think there is much intent to consider those options. I also don’t think there has been enough thought given to the potential for black markets and internet sales from other countries. It is a fairly radical change in the tax code and I think it would be necessary to phase in over time so that the drawbacks are better understood. Many liberal programs have failed due to unintended consequences and I don’t think anyone should assume they fully understand the consequences of the fair tax.

I think that if the Republicans were on board with Palin this year, green as she is, that they would stomach Bobby Jindal, who will by then have 5 years under his belt, including disaster management experience thanks to the hurricanes. George W. Bush had 6 years before getting the nomination and the election, and no real political experience prior to that, unlike Bill Clinton who was both governor and Arkansas Attorney General.

But for Mr. Jindal to make a plausible case against the incumbent, things will have to have gone terribly awry. I do not foresee a one-term administration for Barack Obama, but I’m not God. Your wish for 2016 may be the one.

Thank you for the question.

In 1856 (Fremont), 1860 (Lincoln), 1920 (Harding) and 1940 (Willkie) the GOP nominated for the presidency relative newcomers to the national stage—and one could make a case that the GOP did so in 1876 (Hayes) as well—but that puts it back a bit. From 1880 onward with two exceptions, and from 1944 onward with zero exceptions, and in the primary-election era with zero exceptions, the GOP has never nominated a perceived newcomer or a darkhorse. On the other hand, from 1968 onward it could be argued that the GOP had always nominated whoever had been perceived to stand first in line, as it were—the sole post-War exceptions being 1952 and 1964, when the Republican nominee if not first in line was hardly a surprise.

I would not discourage Bobby Jindal from running in 2012. In fact, I would like to hear more from the man and am entirely open to the prospect of voting for him. It’s just that, judging solely on historical experience, it is hard to suppose that the GOP would actually nominate him so soon. Given the established GOP pattern, Mr. Jindal would be too new in 2012.

So, how could Mr. Jindal overcome the newness problem? Answer: assuming that Barack Obama triumphs this November, Mr. Jindal could make an unsuccessful but solid, serious, credible run at the nomination in 2012. To do so could put him first in line for 2016 or 2020.

But you don’t have to credit my analysis. I am merely picking patterns out of the tapestry of history. Every election has the potential to break an established pattern, after all.

HJH

The FairTax makes very good sense, if you take the time to study it. Problem is, it doesn’t make for good sound bites. It’s not punishing to lower- or middle-classes; each receive tax rebate checks each month to make up for the “below the tax rate” spending they’d be doing.

As far as Huckabee as candidate goes, if he plans to do that he should probably make a quick exit from his brainlessly silly Fox News talk show, or else he’ll lose (unless Obama bowed out and the Dems nominate Dr. Phil).

Nearly all your articles are interesting and this one is no exception. I hope and tend to believe that you are right that Mrs. Palin will not be the Republican heir apparent in 2012, though she will remain a national figure and one is not prepared entirely to dismiss her chances just yet. It seems to me that you are right about Mike Huckabee.

Finding the body of your article persuasive, I would call attention nonetheless to one or two points in it.

The failure of the campaign is likely to be misread as proof that it was McCain the deviationist could not articulate a coherent alternative to Obama….

The failure of the campaign is likely to be misread in several ways. I suggest, and would maintain in spite of contrary suggestions, that the failure will largely have been due to long-term, politically cyclic factors that will have had very little to do with Mr. McCain, himself: namely, that the Republicans will have had their day in the sun and that the wheel of American politics is now turning, as it will turn again.

[P]rovided that he could get someone to give him some money, [Mike Huckabee] could become the presumptive frontrunner.

Fair enough. Four years is a long time, but inasmuch Republicans also have a long, steady history of refusing to nominate perceived newcomers to the national stage (George W. Bush not having being perceived as a newcomer on account of his family connections), it seems probable that the 2012 Republican nominee will be someone already in clear view. This means that, whatever his faults as a campaigner might have been, Mitt Romney cannot be counted out.

Besides Huckabee, Palin and Romney, others already in clear view include Jeb Bush (not my choice, but nonetheless), Newt Gingrich (again not my choice), David H. Petraeus and, unexpectedly, the aging Ron Paul. For obvious, culturally-ethnically dynamical reasons, J.C. Watts could make an interesting run that could be an exception to the rule, though I doubt that it would succeed and, anyway, Mr. Watts has shown no interest in trying. Observe that Bobby Jindal, Tim Pawlenty and Mitch McConnell do not yet clear the national bar, not soon enough for 2012. Still further Republicans might try in 2012 but should probably be viewed as positioning themselves for 2016 or 2020.

But, yes, you are right. Mr. Huckabee is clearly, assiduously positioning himself for a 2012 run for the presidency and—though I prefer Mr. Romney—if my money were riding on the outcome, I’d bet on Mr. Huckabee. The 2008 run was his necessary, successful debut. This leaves him the early, early frontrunner for 2012, just as you suggest.

Howard

By the way, as an outsider, I can tell you why Huckabee is infinitely more likely to win the nomination in 2012. Most of the country believes that Huckabee is sincere and that Sarah Palin is a phony. Huckabee never backed away from a interview and was never made into a partisan attack dog. In addition, as far as I can tell, Huckabee does not have the same history of bending government rules for personal gain (e.g., receiving a per diem for staying at his permanent resident or charging the state for his children’s travel expenses).

“he will be well-positioned to satisfy libertarians”

This is an odd assertion about an economically-populist and socially extreme (anti-science and supportive of maximally-intrusive or prohibitive social policies). What would libertarians possibly see in Huckabee?

I don’t know; if the knock on her is that she wasn’t ready for prime time, that can be remedied in four years. She won’t be more qualified, necessarily, but she’ll be a lot savvier (which is what people usually mean by “qualified”- see Obama, Barack.) Plus, she has four years to collect favors from party players through fundraising, etc.

Honestly; if Huckabee can overcome elite hatred, Palin can, too. I’m not saying she’s a sure bet; who knows how much blood letting the GOP is going to go through after this- I just wouldn’t write her obituary yet.

Also: don’t forget “The Hair”. You can’t look into the GOP’s future and miss “The Hair” on our Latter Day Saint friend.