| Reading this New York Times piece about Mike Huckabee's challenge in the Republican presidential field reminded me of this 2005 Pew Research Center Report on the varying beliefs of subconstituencies among the two major political parties. According to the report, there are major fissures among Republican voters when it comes to economic policy, a majority of whom favor government regulation of business and a fairer economic system.
In short, the report divides Republican voters into three categories, each comprising about a third of the whole: Enterprisers (pro-business), Social Conservatives, and Pro-Government Conservatives (believe government has a role in address conservative issues). It turns out that a majority of Republican voters favors government regulation and opposes the current Republican love affair with supply-side economics.
The numbers are startling. Eight-eight and 83 percent of Social and Pro-Government conservatives believe "too much power is concentrated in the hands of a few large companies," as opposed to 26 percent of Enterprisers. Likewise 58 and 66 percent of Social and Pro-Government conservatives feel it's in the public's interest to regulate business (compared to 16 percent of Enterprisers), and 67 and 61 percent of Social and Pro-Government conservatives favor stricter environmental regulations even if it costs jobs and hurts the economy (compared to 16 percent of Enterprisers).
But the most startling finding in the report surrounds the attitude towards Bush's tax cuts. According to the report, only 13 percent of Enterprisers feel that these cuts should be entirely repealed, or rolled back for the wealthy only, compared to a plurality of Social Consertives (47 percent favor tax cut rollbacks, versus 42 percent opposing) and 58 percent of Pro-Government Conservatives.
A majority of Republican voters favors rolling back tax cuts for the wealthy.
Huckabee, of course, is notorious among conservative columnists for his economic "heresy." As the governor of Arkansas, he raised the state's minimum wage, dealt with labor unions, and even -- gasp -- raised taxes! And earned Arkansas a budget surplus while in office. All of which are favored by a majority of conservatives. And all are likely reasons for why, besides his conservative social credentials, he's probably surging in the polls. The majority of conservatives, having endured years of tax-cut voo-doo economic policies in exchange for empty promises for their pet causes, are apparently looking for an economic populist for a change.
You no doubt know the reaction among the tax-cut-n-spenders. If you don't, just read the editorial pages of the Wall Street Journal, which accuses him of coming from the "religious left."
The thing is, the crackpot "geniuses" of supply-side economics have dominated the rhetoric of the GOP and conservaitve movement since the 1990s, even worming their way under the skin of the establishment chattering class. Any deviation away from tax cutting and towards the responsible management of government budgets is seen as treason against conservatism. Only...it's not. A majority of conservative voters disagree (not to mention most independents and leftys). Still, if you feel the conservative coalition is to endure, you stick with the tax-cut meme if you want to come out top dog in the party's current internecine struggles.
Which brings me to the Montana caucus.
A lot of ink has been spilled in the Montana 'sphere on both sides about why the state GOP opted for a limited caucus instead of a popular primary to decide which candidate to support for the nomination. It seemed to me the party wanted to recruit a bunch of committed precintmen to caucus, and then turn around and use those folks as footsoldiers for the statewide races, especially for the legislature, which is wide open.
But a post by Montana Headlines made it clear that the caucus might have been arranged to orchestrate the state's support for Mitt Romney:
The danger from the start in this caucus was that it seems to have been an idea that was hatched around the same time that Mitt Romney came to Montana for the GOP State Convention. The Romney campaign was the first to be organized in the state (for many months, the only campaign to be organized in the state,) and it has been very active in encouraging Romney supporters to volunteer for precinct positions.
Romney will probably win the Montana caucus by a large margin because of the attention that campaign has paid to the state, and the paid organization that it has applied to Montana. As such, the caucus risks looking like a setup that was designed to hand the state to Romney. Would Romney win a Feb. 5 formal primary? We'll never know.
Now Huckabee was a statistical anomoly way back when the state GOP decided on a caucus, so it's not likely the caucus was arranged to keep Huckabee from winning Montana. It's just a nice side effect. After all, the current crop of instate Republicans party functionaries are obviously the supply-siders, and Mitt Romney is the Establishment Candidate of the DC insiders.
But, by design or no, now the Montana Republican Party won't have to suffer the indignity of a Huckabee win during an open primary, thus repudiating the cornerstone of its platform. Thanks to the caucus, we'll never know. |
