Huckabee - The False Conservative?

Today Robert Novak calls Huckabee "The False Conservative" in the editorial pages of the Washington Post. As I have said before, what scares fusionist "conservatives" about Huckabee is that he is the true conservative, not them, and he demonstrates their economic liberalism (in the classic definition of "liberalism"--meaning completely unrestrained free markets) may not be not necessary to form a governing majority. Novak's article pretty clearly admits this:

The rise of evangelical Christians as the force that blasted the GOP out of minority status during the past generation always contained an inherent danger: What if these new Republican acolytes supported not merely a conventional conservative but one of their own? That has happened with Huckabee, a former Baptist minister educated at Ouachita Baptist University and Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary. The danger is a serious contender for the nomination who passes the litmus test of social conservatives on abortion, gay marriage and gun control but is far removed from the conservative-libertarian model of Barry Goldwater and Ronald Reagan.

Notice in the last sentence, Novak switches to the term "conservative-libertarian," showing that this is what he really means by "conservative." He also goes on to complain about Huckabee's desire to conserve the environment, saying it is "anathema to the free market." But what's so "conservative" about supporting absolute free markets even when they destroy the environment, families, or civil society?

Novak also calls evangelicals (and really should include practicing Catholics too) an "inherent danger" even as he admits that the Republicans would have been relegated to permanent minority status--probably would have gone the way of the Whigs--if it weren't for Christian social conservatives joining the Party. It sounds like Novak defines "danger" as dropping the libertarian part of Novak's hyphenated-conservatism, rather than the danger of becoming secularist states like Europe that inevitably slide into socialism when all the moral undergirdings that make economic liberties possible are gone.

Thank you, Mr. Novak, for coming clean about exactly where you and your ilk are coming from in your exaggerated criticisms of Gov. Huckabee.

P.S. I've been reading the other encyclicals over the Thanksgiving holiday and will get back to my commentary on Huckabee and Catholic social thought shortly.

Living Wages: Moral and Practical

Continuing my series of blog posts on Catholic social teaching, here is another section of Rerum Novarum:

45. Let the working man and the employer make free agreements, and in particular let them agree freely as to the wages; nevertheless, there underlies a dictate of natural justice more imperious and ancient than any bargain between man and man, namely, that wages ought not to be insufficient to support a frugal and well-behaved wage-earner. If through necessity or fear of a worse evil the workman accept harder conditions because an employer or contractor will afford him no better, he is made the victim of force and injustice. In these and similar questions, however - such as, for example, the hours of labor in different trades, the sanitary precautions to be observed in factories and workshops, etc. - in order to supersede undue interference on the part of the State, especially as circumstances, times, and localities differ so widely, it is advisable that recourse be had to societies or boards such as We shall mention presently [i.e., workingmen's unions and mutual aid societies], or to some other mode of safeguarding the interests of the wage-earners; the State being appealed to, should circumstances require, for its sanction and protection.

46. If a workman's wages be sufficient to enable him comfortably to support himself, his wife, and his children, he will find it easy, if he be a sensible man, to practice thrift, and he will not fail, by cutting down expenses, to put by some little savings and thus secure a modest source of income. Nature itself would urge him to this. We have seen that this great labor question cannot be solved save by assuming as a principle that private ownership must be held sacred and inviolable. The law, therefore, should favor ownership, and its policy should be to induce as many as possible of the people to become owners.

47. Many excellent results will follow from this; and, first of all, property will certainly become more equitably divided. For, the result of civil change and revolution has been to divide cities into two classes separated by a wide chasm. On the one side there is the party which holds power because it holds wealth; which has in its grasp the whole of labor and trade; which manipulates for its own benefit and its own purposes all the sources of supply, and which is not without influence even in the administration of the commonwealth. On the other side there is the needy and powerless multitude, sick and sore in spirit and ever ready for disturbance. If working people can be encouraged to look forward to obtaining a share in the land, the consequence will be that the gulf between vast wealth and sheer poverty will be bridged over, and the respective classes will be brought nearer to one another. A further consequence will result in the great abundance of the fruits of the earth. Men always work harder and more readily when they work on that which belongs to them; nay, they learn to love the very soil that yields in response to the labor of their hands, not only food to eat, but an abundance of good things for themselves and those that are dear to them. That such a spirit of willing labor would add to the produce of the earth and to the wealth of the community is self evident. And a third advantage would spring from this: men would cling to the country in which they were born, for no one would exchange his country for a foreign land if his own afforded him the means of living a decent and happy life. These three important benefits, however, can be reckoned on only provided that a man's means be not drained and exhausted by excessive taxation. The right to possess private property is derived from nature, not from man; and the State has the right to control its use in the interests of the public good alone, but by no means to absorb it altogether. The State would therefore be unjust and cruel if under the name of taxation it were to deprive the private owner of more than is fair.

In other words, it is both a moral imperative and a practical benefit to the State and society to promote wages that are sufficient for a decent family life and the accumulation of savings for all, though not by means of excessive taxation. Today, the Democrats wish to reduce inequality of income and wealth by means of excessive taxation, but this violates the natural right to private property and also increases hatred between the classes. But too many Republicans do not believe in the "dictate of natural justice" that an employer who fails to pay a diligent full time worker enough to be able to frugally support a family commits a grave injustice. Furthermore, they do not champion a frugal lifestyle and personal savings, preferring instead ever more consumption as "proof" of a healthy economy and driver of increasing wealth for those who already own capital.

Mike Huckabee stands apart from both parties on this issue. He isn't afraid to chide executives for raking in 500 times the income of their low-level workers, and outsourcing good-paying jobs overseas. This type of behavior is immoral. But neither does Huckabee advocate a confiscatory tax on the wealthy to change this situation. Instead, he supports a complete overhaul of our tax system (and health care system) to make our domestic businesses more competitive in the global economy, naturally creating more good-paying jobs. Moreover, he proposes that taxes should be based on consumption, increasing the incentives to be hard-working and frugal, since neither work nor savings would be taxed, but excessive spending would be. Huckabee's tax proposal even includes a "prebate" to make sure that all families would not be taxed on the bare essentials of spending--only on spending that goes above the level of necessity.

I would also note that Rerum Novarum suggests workingmen's unions as a preferable alternative to direct State intervention into unfair treatment of employees by employers. However, Pope Leo XIII recognized even then that many unions are not what they ought to be:

Now, there is a good deal of evidence in favor of the opinion that many of these societies are in the hands of secret leaders, and are managed on principles ill - according with Christianity and the public well-being; and that they do their utmost to get within their grasp the whole field of labor, and force working men either to join them or to starve. Under these circumstances Christian working men must do one of two things: either join associations in which their religion will be exposed to peril, or form associations among themselves and unite their forces so as to shake off courageously the yoke of so unrighteous and intolerable an oppression. No one who does not wish to expose man's chief good to extreme risk will for a moment hesitate to say that the second alternative should by all means be adopted.
...
[Many workers] cannot but perceive that their grasping employers too often treat them with great inhumanity and hardly care for them outside the profit their labor brings; and if they belong to any union, it is probably one in which there exists, instead of charity and love, that intestine strife which ever accompanies poverty when unresigned and unsustained by religion. Broken in spirit and worn down in body, how many of them would gladly free themselves from such galling bondage! But human respect, or the dread of starvation, makes them tremble to take the step. To such as these Catholic associations are of incalculable service, by helping them out of their difficulties, inviting them to companionship and receiving the returning wanderers to a haven where they may securely find repose.

Unfortunately, the Christian unions that Pope Leo XIII called for more than a century ago have never materialized. Nevertheless, Huckabee also understands the forces that drive workers to join unions, even if the unions are terribly flawed and often support causes against our Christian beliefs (such as abortion). This is why Huckabee is willing to talk to union members where other Republicans shun them, and warns that unions will resurge unless wages and economic security for workers are strengthened.

Mike Huckabee is right on the mark: living wages are a moral matter, and good for the strength of the nation as well. But the right way to achieve this is not to "soak the rich" with ever more taxes, but to aim directly at boosting wages and encouraging savings.

Right-Sizing the Government by Christian Standards

I have decided to start a series of blog posts based on the Catholic encyclicals addressing issues of economic policy and the proper role of the State: Rerum Novarum (Pope Leo XIII, 1891), Quadragesimo Anno (Pope Pius XI, 1931), and Centesimus Annus (Pope John Paul II, 1991). I have two purposes: to show Catholics how well Mike Huckabee's political positions fit with the teachings of our Church, and to show other Christian supporters of Huckabee a rich intellectual tradition supporting the positions you are embracing.

I will begin with the earliest of these encyclicals. After discussing property ownership as an inherent human right, rejecting class warfare, and explaining the role of the Church in fostering brotherly love between the rich and poor through charitable giving, Pope Leo XIII goes on to say:

31. It cannot, however, be doubted that to attain the purpose we are treating of, not only the Church, but all human agencies, must concur. All who are concerned in the matter should be of one mind and according to their ability act together. It is with this, as with providence that governs the world; the results of causes do not usually take place save where all the causes cooperate. It is sufficient, therefore, to inquire what part the State should play in the work of remedy and relief.

32. By the State we here understand, not the particular form of government prevailing in this or that nation, but the State as rightly apprehended; that is to say, any government conformable in its institutions to right reason and natural law, and to those dictates of the divine wisdom which we have expounded in the encyclical On the Christian Constitution of the State. The foremost duty, therefore, of the rulers of the State should be to make sure that the laws and institutions, the general character and administration of the commonwealth, shall be such as of themselves to realize public well-being and private prosperity. This is the proper scope of wise statesmanship and is the work of the rulers. Now a State chiefly prospers and thrives through moral rule, well-regulated family life, respect for religion and justice, the moderation and fair imposing of public taxes, the progress of the arts and of trade, the abundant yield of the land-through everything, in fact, which makes the citizens better and happier. Hereby, then, it lies in the power of a ruler to benefit every class in the State, and amongst the rest to promote to the utmost the interests of the poor; and this in virtue of his office, and without being open to suspicion of undue interference - since it is the province of the commonwealth to serve the common good. And the more that is done for the benefit of the working classes by the general laws of the country, the less need will there be to seek for special means to relieve them.

What does that have to do with Mike Huckabee? Follow the links in this annotated version of the Rerum Novarum quote to find out for yourself:

Now a State chiefly prospers and thrives through moral rule, well-regulated family life, respect for religion and justice, the moderation and fair imposing of public taxes, the progress of the arts and of trade, the abundant yield of the land-through everything, in fact, which makes the citizens better and happier. Hereby, then, it lies in the power of a ruler to benefit every class in the State, and amongst the rest to promote to the utmost the interests of the poor; and this in virtue of his office, and without being open to suspicion of undue interference - since it is the province of the commonwealth to serve the common good. And the more that is done for the benefit of the working classes by the general laws of the country, the less need will there be to seek for special means to relieve them.

Fighting for Fusionism's Future

National Review has sunk to a new low by publishing this unsupported and unsupportable hatchet job in "The Week":

Mike Huckabee’s rising poll numbers make him the exciting new face in the presidential race, much as Fred Thompson was in the spring. But let’s get serious. Huckabee was an undistinguished governor; both Romney and Giuliani had more executive accomplishments. Huckabee has a better feel for the public’s concerns over health care and wage stagnation than other Republicans; but his distinctive solutions, such as protectionism, would be terrible public policy. Some conservatives fantasize that Huckabee would expand the Republican coalition. But as Patrick Buchanan demonstrated, the blue-collar protectionist voters that populism attracts do not make up for the free-market voters it repels. Huckabee isn’t even the complete social conservative he has been made out to be: He opposes school vouchers. Huckabee is a compelling orator. Would that he had more compelling things to say.

(By the way, the only assertion of fact here--"he opposes school vouchers"--is factually wrong. All the rest is an inflammatory statement of opinion.)

Why is National Review being so negative about Huckabee, when he is 100% solidly pro-life and pro-family, doesn't support the horrid violation of the 1st Amendment that is the McCain-Feingold Act, and is an effective and genuinely likable spokesman for conservative ideals and against big-government disasters like Hillarycare?

I think it is because the popularity of Huckabee highlights the ongoing breakdown of fusionism, which is National Review's foundational philosophy.

What is fusionism, you might ask? It is fusing together two distinct dogmatic beliefs: the invisible hand of free markets will always result in the greatest economic good, and personal moral conduct should be governed by standards revealed by the Judeo-Christian religions.

The odd thing about fusionism is that when you accept the proposition that free markets always produce the greatest economic good, you must reject the idea that government economic policies should ever be governed by standards revealed by Judeo-Christian morals. Government should not show any special care for widows and orphans: the free market is the tide that lifts all boats, and anyone left without a boat must simply hope for some non-governmental charitable act to save them.

In other words, under fusionism, we take our religion into the public square, except we leave it at the market door. There's a great deal of tension inherent in this view, especially since Judeo-Christian morals teach us lessons of corporate responsibility to lift up those who are economically vulnerable.

Moreover, pure, Darwinian free markets are on a cataclysmic collision course with the traditional family. In our post-agrarian society, children are no longer an economic asset for parents. Instead, they are a huge economic drain, in direct costs and opportunity costs for parents who can't devote themselves as much to their jobs. Our industrial and service-oriented economic system rewards the childless and the people who focus on work outside the home. The economic incentives are all wrong when it comes to families. As Jennifer Roback Morse has argued well, the laissez-faire family doesn't work.

The internal contradictions in fusionism have always been fairly evident, but somehow it still worked for a long time. When many women still stayed at home to raise children and the government tried to control prices, the push toward a more laissez-faire economic policy actually helped families. But today is a different story. Wages have been depressed because of so many more women working (and unchecked immigration), housing prices are out of reach for many middle class families in many areas now, good jobs are moving overseas, the entry ticket to a middle class job (the college degree) gets much more expensive every year, and the retiring Baby Boomers are about to crush the economic future of our children. Unless we change the economic incentives for families, we're on track for the demographic winter that is already crushing Europe.

National Review sometimes acknowledges these issues--particularly Mark Steyn, who often writes about our demographic doom. And a couple years back there was the "crunchie con" edition, acknowledging the conservatives who want to "act local" to reclaim traditional families and communities and resist the dehumanizing trends of globalism. But just as often, or more often, they publish articles in which rising personal consumption is presented as a good thing, and any limits on globalism as apostasy.

Huckabee takes the side of Mark Steyn and the crunchie cons, and says No to Darwinism in all its forms. He isn't a fusionist, he's just conservative. Conserving life, conserving the environment, conserving family bonds. And by golly, the people of faith in America like that! What if the conservatives don't need the extreme economic liberals (in the old sense of the word liberal) to form a governing coalition? What is the future of fusionism then?

Perhaps there isn't much of one. In which case, there may not be much of a future for fusionism's greatest herald, National Review.

Lessons from the Virginia Election

The Day of Reckoning came in Virginia yesterday, what's done is done, and I am able to focus on the Huckabee campaign again.

We did our best (and a special shout-out to Kevin Tracy for handing out fliers in the cold rain yesterday morning even though he isn't registered to vote in the Commonwealth), but the Democrats took control over the Virginia Senate nonetheless.

A few lessons learned from yesterday's election, that we can use going forward into the Presidential race:

1. Republican obstruction of government spending on key infrastructure is a losing position. Besides Bush fatigue, the main reason Republicans lost here is because the down-state GOP legislators have been reluctant and parsimonious in funding the transportation improvements that the urban/suburban areas desperately need. Transportation is the most important issue for half of Northern Virginia voters, and they're willing to pay for it: the transportation bond referendum passed 82-18% last night. So Club for Growth, shut up and stop slamming Huckabee for supporting a tax increase to fix the roads in Arkansas.
   
   
2. A Republican tacking to the left on social issues picks up no votes - only loses some of the base. There were 3 very hot Senate races in NoVa: Davis-Petersen, O'Brien-Barker, and Cuccinelli-Olesek. Each Republican incumbent was fighting a tsunami of money from the Democratic Party of Virginia. Mrs. Davis tacked to the left on social issues, never saying anything conservative on these issues, courting the gay vote, and opposing people with concealed carry permits being able to bring the guns into schools, libraries, etc. She lost by the biggest margin: 45-55. O'Brien and Cuccinelli made no apologies for being socially conservative and the Democrats attacked them in TV ads for it. O'Brien lost just barely: 51-49, and Cuccinelli is still hanging by a thread with the absentee ballots yet to be counted. Not that this is a rosy picture, but it certainly throws cold water on the theory that somehow Giuliani can pick up electoral votes in blue states without losing them in the South. Ask your local campaign chair, Mrs. Davis, how well her liberal swing worked out for her.
   
   
   
3. Huckabee needs to fight harder against rumors he is soft on immigration. As I went canvassing door-to-door, I got an earful a number of times about how important it was to crack down on illegal immigration, which is draining public resources, contributing to congestion, and lowering the quality of life in the area in numerous ways. The Republicans in Prince William County, who focused on this issue, did just fine last night. By contrast, Mrs. Davis sent one mailer on this issue -- in August. Bad choice. A lot of people in the district who are traditionally Democrat are exercised about how illegal immigration is ruining their neighborhoods, and she would have had a fighting chance if she showed them why she represented their views. Huckabee has got to do everything he can to toughen his image on this issue.
   
   
   
4. Republicans who think just anyone can beat Hillary are fooling themselves. There has been a strong shift toward independents voting Democratic by default because they're fed up with the Republicans who are in power. Moreover, the electorate is really upset about the negative campaigning (I heard that time and time again while canvassing and standing outside the polls yesterday) and want positive solutions. Unless the Republican candidate is charismatic, stays positive, and focuses on new ideas on important issues instead of attacking Hillary, the disgusted middle will vote for Hillary as a matter of anti-Republican momentum or just stay home.

On a more happy note, I was able to gather 125 signatures of bona fide registered voters yesterday to help get Huckabee on the Virginia primary ballot. This is one of the toughest states: we need 10,000 good signatures of registered Virginia voters for Huckabee to be on the ballot. (All the candidates do -- the Giuliani and RP people were out getting signatures at my polling place yesterday too.) As a practical matter, that means 20,000 signatures, because many will be illegible or the person isn't registered to vote. All Virginia Huckabee supporters, please pitch in! Contact David John if you're willing to help gather signatures.