fbpx
Politics Foreign Affairs Culture Fellows Program

McCain-Huckabee

Ross worries because his McCain-Huckabee speculation has been adopted by Broder, but it is not the idea itself that is necessarily terrible–it is the classic Broderian way in which Broder advances the proposal that guarantees that it becomes unspeakably bad (rather like his previous applause for Bloomberg-Hagel).  The theme of the column is supposed to be principles.  The idea is that McCain and […]

Ross worries because his McCain-Huckabee speculation has been adopted by Broder, but it is not the idea itself that is necessarily terrible–it is the classic Broderian way in which Broder advances the proposal that guarantees that it becomes unspeakably bad (rather like his previous applause for Bloomberg-Hagel).  The theme of the column is supposed to be principles.  The idea is that McCain and Huckabee have principles, Romney and Giuliani don’t (he may have a point there), and the rest of the field doesn’t matter.   Better than that, you see, they have “clarity, character and, yes, simple humanity.”  This is just another version of Broder’s endless praise for politicians who oppose their own party’s voters on major policy issues, and who do so in such a way that they agree with David Broder and thus prove themselves members of what I’m sure he thinks is the “reasonable center” of politics.  What is Broder really getting at?  Well, he makes it clear soon enough: McCain and Huckabee have bucked the opposition to illegal immigration in their party and don’t take their “rhetorical cues” from Tancredo.  That is apparently the main thing that matters in making them worthy nominees. 

Ross’ original, brief proposal was much more interesting.  Ross was making a case for the viability of such a ticket in the general election, and there is something to this.  In theory, they should be able to hold down the social conservative base of the party, satisfy war supporters and offer themselves up as two men with extensive experience in government.  They might bring in 45-46% of the vote that way, which could be the best the GOP can hope for this cycle.  (In a typically lower turnout election last year, Republicans saw their share of the popular vote drop by five points from ’04 and ’02, which is especially remarkable for a midterm vote and suggests continued weakness in next year’s election when there will be much higher Democratic turnout than last year.)  I think their immigration view will still be a millstone around their necks, and not just among Republican voters.  If illegal immigration really was as much of an issue in MA-05 this fall as I and some others believe it was, a candidate who supported border security and interior enforcement without amnesty provisions might be slightly more competitive in more parts of the country than supposedy more “moderate” and “centrist” Republicans such as McCain and Huckabee.  (As Ogonowski’s defeat and the results of the Virginia elections show, this issue isn’t enough on its own to propel the GOP to victory, but those who calculate that it actually hurts the GOP electorally are mistaken.)  There was tremendous opposition to “comprehensive” immigration legislation from virtually all quarters, and it isn’t clear that the GOP wins back independents and “Perot voters” and the like by putting forward some of their most liberal, pro-immigration members as nominees.  In any case, I think Ross and everyone else understands that it is exactly Huckabee and McCain’s immigration views that will continue to hold them back in the primaries.  Why else would Broder say that the GOP would have to “grit its teeth” to nominate them, except that they are profoundly unrepresentative of what a large part of the party believes on immigration?  The strange thing is that immigration is probably one of the few issues where the GOP is much closer to the views of the majority of the country, and it is one of the few on which it is still trusted more than the Democrats, so the last candidates you would want to nominate are those who are known for their sharp disagreements with the rest of the party on this very question.   

Then again, as long as the war remains as unpopular as it is, any Republican nominee dedicated to staying in Iraq will drag the party down, which makes discussions of GOP competitiveness in the general election somewhat moot.  Bearing all that in mind, this idea might have some potential*.  Even so, we can be pretty sure it isn’t going to happen, and not just because of immigration.  According to this, McCain’s opposition to torture apparently also scores poorly with at least one GOP focus group, so if Huckabee is accepting at least part of McCain’s position on torture he may become almost as unpopular in the party as McCain in the end. 

*I am speaking here purely in terms of electoral calculation.  I can think of few things more terrifying from a policy perspective than the prospect of another administration that marries aggressive hegemonic foreign policy with saccharine moralising pseudo-piety and policies that encourage mass immigration.

P.S.  Much of what I said above can also be said about a Giuliani-Huckabee combination, which is slightly less implausible politically given the current polls, but it is even less likely to prevail in the general election.

Advertisement

Comments

The American Conservative Memberships
Become a Member today for a growing stake in the conservative movement.
Join here!
Join here