Identity Politics Do NOT Explain the Huckaboom

Many of the conservative establishment pundits are continuing to insist on this talking point. NRO says again today that Huckabee "ran on his religion" to win in Iowa, but he needs to broaden his appeal beyond Evangelicals to win the nomination. That's rich coming from the publication that has gone all-out to convince other types of conservatives that Huckabee is a wolf in sheep's clothing and somehow his occasional support for a small tax increase to cover the state budget is soooo much worse than McCain opposing the Bush tax cuts or Romney raising fees in Taxachussets.

As someone who left the Evangelical camp for Rome Sweet Home a decade ago, I certainly don't support Huckabee because he's an Evangelical. Yes, some people are motivated to support him for this reason. Frankly, I find some downright loony comments out there on the wild west web where people associate their support for Huckabee with visions from God or apocalyptic predictions. But there aren't nearly enough people in this nation who think that way to account for the Huckaboom we're seeing in serious polls.

A few pundits are willing to acknowledge this and look at the Huckaboom phenomenon seriously. I want to commend Michael Medved and David Brooks for being two of today's best commentators on Huckabee's Iowa caucus victory.

Medved says "Stop Lying About Huckabee and Evangelicals!", crunches the numbers, and points out this statistical gem:

Yes, Huckabee’s 46% of Evangelicals was a strong showing, but it was directly comparable to his commanding 40% of women, or 40% of all voters under the age of 30, or 41% of those earning less than $30,000 a year. His powerful appeal to females, the young and the poor make him a different kind of Republican, who connects with voting blocs the GOP needs to win back. He’s hardly the one-dimensional religious candidate of media caricature.

Brooks offers this insightful commentary:

Some people are going to tell you that Mike Huckabee’s victory last night in Iowa represents a triumph for the creationist crusaders. Wrong.

Huckabee won because he tapped into realities that other Republicans have been slow to recognize. First, evangelicals have changed. Huckabee is the first ironic evangelical on the national stage. He’s funny, campy (see his Chuck Norris fixation) and he’s not at war with modern culture.

Second, Huckabee understands much better than Mitt Romney that we have a crisis of authority in this country. People have lost faith in their leaders’ ability to respond to problems. While Romney embodies the leadership class, Huckabee went after it. He criticized Wall Street and K Street. Most importantly, he sensed that conservatives do not believe their own movement is well led. He took on Rush Limbaugh, the Club for Growth and even President Bush. The old guard threw everything they had at him, and their diminished power is now exposed.

Third, Huckabee understands how middle-class anxiety is really lived. Democrats talk about wages. But real middle-class families have more to fear economically from divorce than from a free trade pact. A person’s lifetime prospects will be threatened more by single parenting than by outsourcing. Huckabee understands that economic well-being is fused with social and moral well-being, and he talks about the inter-relationship in a way no other candidate has.

In that sense, Huckabee’s victory is not a step into the past. It opens up the way for a new coalition.

A conservatism that recognizes stable families as the foundation of economic growth is not hard to imagine. A conservatism that loves capitalism but distrusts capitalists is not hard to imagine either. Adam Smith felt this way. A conservatism that pays attention to people making less than $50,000 a year is the only conservatism worth defending.

Exactly! Brooks still is skeptical that Huckabee has what it takes to win the nomination, but he concludes "starting last night in Iowa, an evangelical began the Republican Reformation."

Yes, this is a reformation of the GOP, but it may be more Vatican II (elevating the importance of the "lay" grassroots and tweaking outdated customs) than Martin Luther (wholesale rejection of certain "doctrines"). After all, Huckabee did choose to quote G.K. Chesterton at his victory speech, not Tim LaHaye or even Abraham Kuyper.

I'm not suggesting that Huckabee is a closet Catholic or anything other than an Evangelical. My point is that what makes him a great candidate is that he reaches beyond the Evangelical box, to understand and represent the concerns of people of goodwill beyond denominational labels.