Why Mike Huckabee must be stopped

When it comes to exposing the danger of the Mike Huckabee candidacy, no one has come close to Jonah Goldberg over at National Review Online (h/t – Reason and Revelation). Goldberg’s entire column is a takedown of the Huckster, but he really warms to the topic in the middle of the piece:

What’s troubling about The Man From Hope 2.0 is what he represents. Huckabee represents compassionate conservatism on steroids. A devout social conservative on issues such as abortion, school prayer, homosexuality and evolution, Huckabee’s a populist on economics, a fad-follower on the environment and an all-around do-gooder who believes that the biblical obligation to do “good works” extends to using government — and your tax dollars — to bring us closer to the Kingdom of Heaven on Earth.

For example, Huckabee would support a nationwide ban on public smoking. Why? Because he’s on a health kick, thinks smoking is bad and believes the government should do the right thing.

Those readers who have followed this space from the beginning know that for yours truly, nothing is as dangerous as someone who “believes the government should do the right thing.” It is the antithesis of limited government. Goldberg notes this as well:

Indeed, Huckabee represents the latest attempt to make conservatism more popular. Contrary to the conventional belief that Republicans need to drop their opposition to abortion, gay marriage and the like in order to be popular, Huckabee understands that the unpopular stuff is the economic libertarianism: free trade and smaller government. That’s why we’re seeing a rise in economic populism on the right married to a culturally conservative populism.

This is why Huckabee spooks Goldberg; in fact, it’s why he should spook all of us.

This last year has made abundantly clear a trend that has been in place for some time: the marginalization of the limited government principle within the Republican Party. I focus on 2007 because it was the first chance for the party to notice the consequences of going so badly astray from that principle – namely, losing Congress nationally, and the loss of George Allen locally.

The response was, too say the least, troubling. Richmond Republicans cam up with HB3202, better known as the transportation tax hike of 2007. After voters soundly rejected that silliness, Republicans in eastern Virginia responded by nominating for Congress the only candidate who voted for the political millstone. Finally, nationwide, the man with the momentum is a long-time Arkansas tax-hiker who has insulted the Club for Growth.

Many wonder what a Giuliani nomination would mean for social conservatives. I can understand why, but Giuliani has made it abundantly clear during his campaign that he understands the role social conservatives play in the GOP. Huckabee, by contrast, has made it just as clear that in his Republican party, what is loosely called “economic conservatism” – in fact, the very principle of limited government – has no place.

That is why Huckabee must be stopped. His nomination would split the party in half, and drive away millions of libertarian-leaning Republicans. It would be a painful repeat of the 1992 election, when George H. W. Bush lost these voters over the tax hike of 1990 and never got them back.