I DON’T NORMALLY watch Lou Dobbs. I sometimes briefly peek in on his show’s festivities, and that’s enough to get a sense of things. Immigrants are bad. Illegal immigrants are really bad. Free trade is bad. Outsourcing is really bad. His is a timeless populist message pitting the little American guy against leviathan-like forces like Chinese factory workers and Mexican lettuce pickers. Sadly, the American people have bought his message in whole. NAFTA has become an ugly stepchild for even Hillary Clinton. And the Republicans talk a lot about the need to beat those damn Chinese.
At the end of his show before last Wednesday’s Republican debate, Dobbs released the results of that evening’s poll: Would the candidates sound a populist message? Some 80 percent of the respondents said no. Dobbs hoped they were wrong.
Therein lies the biggest reason why Mike Huckabee has caught on so dramatically. Huckabee is a populist, and unlike all the populists we’ve seen in the past 15 years (Ross Perot, Al Gore, John Edwards), he’s a credible one. What’s more, he’s so likable that his populism doesn’t have the ominous overtones of Lou Dobb’s nightly demagoguery.
HERE’S WHAT I wrote on May 3 about Mike Huckabee after the first Republican debate:
First off, mea culpa. Mea maxima culpa. I underestimated Huckabee. He’s the best politician in the land. He connects with people in a scary way. He exudes decency. He doesn’t fumble over answers. He prepares well, but he also ad-libs brilliantly.
In taking on a top tier of Mitt Romney, John McCain, Rudy Giuliani, and Fred Thompson, it’s obvious where Mike Huckabee got the notion that he should be president. Being president has a great deal to do with being a skillful politician. It’s easy to imagine Huckabee figuring that he could take these guys, even starting from way back in the pack and with no money. (I should add that the rationale behind the Tommy Thompson campaign still eludes me to this day.)
Left unstated in the above is the obvious and I’d argue indisputable fact that all the other top tier candidates are, objectively speaking, more qualified for the job than Huckabee. Huckabee probably knows this. But he also knows that in the modern era, we don’t elect résumés. In 1992, we selected an unproven young man from one of America’s most impoverished states. In 2000, we elected a late bloomer who hadn’t done anything of significance with his life until just six years prior.
SO WHAT WOULD a Huckabee nomination mean for the Republican party? First, the good news. Huckabee, as we’ve all discovered, is quite good at seeking office. As a Romney guy, it pains me to say this, but Huckabee may well be our strongest potential nominee. All of the others have well documented weaknesses as wholesale and retail politicians. Huckabee doesn’t.
What’s more, Huckabee is the one Republican with a chance of having some crossover appeal to people who are traditionally unlikely to vote for Republicans. As the nominee, he would rebrand a party badly in need of rebranding.
Now, on to the bad news. Let me start with an anecdote. A few weeks ago, I was out to dinner with two dozen Evangelical voters. Someone asked them whether or not they would vote for Rudy Giuliani in the general election if he wins the Republican nomination. About 1/3 of those present said that under no circumstances would they vote for a pro-choice Republicans. I told them I didn’t believe them; they weren’t going to sit out the election, and they certainly weren’t going to vote for Hillary, but their vigorous responses made me believe.
Now, the shoe’s on the other foot. With Huckabee ascending, there’s a chance that other wings of the Republican party will have to settle for a nominee who’s not altogether satisfactory. Personally, I don’t much like the populism shtick. I’ve seen no indication that Huckabee has a mastery of our perilous geopolitical situation. I would also be more comfortable with a candidate whose résumé isn’t inferior to Bill Clinton’s. A big chunk of the party will support Huckabee only because he’s preferable to the Democratic candidate. That’s not a recipe for a smashing turnout, and not indicative of an altogether healthy party.
Throughout this campaign, the media and the analysts have underestimated Huckabee. I should know–I’ve been a guilty of doing so myself. But the time for underestimating him is over.
As a Red Sox fan, I used to use a little trick to calm my perpetually jangled nerves. When the Sox looked like they were about to blow a big game, I would ask myself. “Given the current situation, objectively speaking, which team would you rather be rooting for?” Usually the team that was in the most desirable situation won the game, even if they were wearing the carmine hose.
Right now, the Huckabee campaign is in the best shape. All of the other campaigns would gladly trade places with Huckabee. That doesn’t mean he’s going to win. There’s a lot of time left. But it seems like a lifetime ago when the Romney and Giuliani campaigns thought tearing each other down was priority number one, doesn’t it?
Dean Barnett is a staff writer at THE WEEKLY STANDARD.
