Some Thoughts on Huck Mania

by publius

I’m still catching up on the news, but I have a few quick thoughts on the rise of Huckabee (and the fascinating conservative backlash – see Steve Benen for a roundup).

First, regardless of what you think of Huckabee’s over-the-top religiosity, it’s shrewd politics. The knock against Huckabee has been that he lacks the organization and infrastructure to mount a serious campaign. For that very reason, I predicted (and I think I was early on this) that Huckabee would do little more than steal Romney’s thunder in the early states, thus handing the nomination to Giuliani.

What I overlooked, however, is how quickly Huckabee could assemble a viable infrastructure by becoming the evangelicals’ “guy.” Politically speaking, the great thing about social conservatives is that they come to politics already organized. Long before any candidates start organizing precincts, these people belong to churches, youth groups, choirs, etc. – i.e., permanent organizations with a great deal of trust and adhesion. For instance, if a few respected people within an Iowa Baptist church get excited about Huckabee, it’s easier to get the rest of congregation on board as well. And if these people have neighbors who attend a different church – e.g., the Methodist church down the street – well, you could see how Huck Mania could spread virally within a given religious community.

Bottom line, it’s much easier to take advantage of pre-existing infrastructure than to construct it yourself. And that’s what Huckabee seems to be doing. If he can solidify this support, it could continue delivering solid pluralities so long as multiple candidates remain in the race splitting the non-evangelical vote. [On an aside, this is precisely why union support is so vital to the Democratic Party (and why some level of “pandering” to unions is justified – it ultimately advances progressive policies).

Second, the fact that Huckabee is preaching the good news (code for “the gospel” for you godless heathens out there) doesn’t explain why he’s caught fire. Brownback, after all, pitched the same message, but never got off the ground.

I think there are a couple of explanations. For one, it’s a reflection of frustration. Evangelicals distrusted the entire first tier, and pinned their hopes on Thompson. Being the savvy, fiery campaigner that he is, he instantly pissed them all off with some careless words on abortion (for a GOP primary candidate). With Brownback out, Huckabee is the last (good) man standing.

But the more interesting explanation is that evangelicals see Huckabee as a more politically viable option than say Brownback. It’s a fascinating contrast of perspectives. As I’ll explain below, some Republicans are terrified of such an openly-religious candidate being the nominee. From their perspective, he’s too Brownbacky. But from the evangelical perspective, Huckabee is a lot more viable than someone like Brownback. Huckabee gets along with the press, appears on Bill Maher, is very personable, has executive experience, and so on. In short, they’re seeing Clinton while others are seeing Brownback. In this sense, Huckabee is like the image that is simultaneously a young pretty woman or an old hag depending on your perspective.

Third, the conservative blogger backlash to Huckabee has also been fascinating. Steve Benen has a great rundown of the various explanations for the backlash. One of these explanations comes from Kevin Drum who thinks the conservative establishment (being urban gingerbread latte drinkers themselves) is just as afraid of social conservatives as liberals are:

I think this brand of yahooism puts off mainstream urban conservatives every bit as much as it does mainstream urban liberals. They're afraid that this time, it's not just a line of patter to keep the yokels in line.

I don’t really agree with this though, largely because it gives mainstream urban conservatives too much credit. Sure, they’re not crazy about fundamentalism, but I don’t think they’re actually scared of it. In fact, I think they’re largely indifferent to it. To the extent they actually care about these social issues in the first place, they know that Huckabee’s fundamentalism will never command legislative supermajorities. And even if it did, most of them live in places (and with incomes) that keep them and their children safe from things like birth control bans or abortion restrictions. Let the poor 14-year olds in rural Mississippi fight that battle.

No, the fear is not of fundamentalism itself. The fear is losing. On some level, they know that these positions freak out mainstream America. That’s why Bush fumbled about on Roe v. Wade during the 2004 debates and could only bring himself to speak in code (“Dred Scott”). The backlash shows that these people – like much of the GOP establishment – are ashamed of this coalition. They're happy to make out with them behind the football bleachers on Saturday night, but ignore them in the lunchroom on Monday.

But still, the GOP needs them. And so the deal has been that “the crazies” stay below-radar in return for below-radar policies (e.g., judges, denying funding to international organizations who don’t believe in abstinence-based policies). Huckabee is a threat because he violates the terms of the unspoken deal.

Comments

[Jesurgislac]

"their strong moral conviction that abortion is wrong"

And of course anyone who actually had a "strong moral conviction" that abortion is wrong would be working to prevent abortions - which is the one thing that the pro-life movement does not do.

[someotherdude]

During the 80s, these men and their organizations were active in raising money for Death Squads in Latin America and Africa, as well as "protecting the unborn." Not complicated.

I soon found myself in a conference room with a couple of dozen people, including Ralph Reed, then head of the Christian Coalition; Carl F. H. Henry, an evangelical theologian; Tom Minnery of Focus on the Family; Donald Wildmon, head of the American Family Association; Richard Land of the Southern Baptist Convention; and Edward G. Dobson, pastor of an evangelical church in Grand Rapids, Michigan, and formerly one of Jerry Falwell's acolytes at Moral Majority. Paul M. Weyrich, a longtime conservative activist, head of what is now called the Free Congress Foundation, and one of the architects of the Religious Right in the late 1970s, was also there.

[someotherdude]

The saving the "unborn" sure can cover all kinds of deadly activity.

[someotherdude]

It would be interesting to know where these defenders of the “sanctity of life” stood, when lynching was considered a Southern cultural tradition. They were all against Civil Rights, considered it a communist plot.

[someotherdude]

And of all these movements, only Christian Reconstructionist (Fundamentalist Presbyterians) has told us what they want to do after Roe is over turned. Kill the doctor and mother who executed the abortion.

Jesurgislac, is right, what is the “Pro-Life” movement’s stance on this? Forced Pregnancies? I suspect most of them have not thought it out, because they have no intention of seeing it happen. The whole “protecting the un-born” is a front for some other very unpopular beliefs. It may seem like a “conspiracy theory.” So be it. Since its inception, (no pun intended) what have they accomplished? The movement has accomplished right-wing solidarity for all other types of right-wing projects. Protecting the un-born is the least of their priorities. Only in so far as it effects poor women (white or of color) in the South.

[Sebastian Holsclaw]

During the 80s, these men and their organizations were active in raising money for Death Squads in Latin America and Africa, as well as "protecting the unborn."

You seem uninterested in sticking to any particular definition of "these men" during your argument. As such I'm unable to engage with you because I never have any idea who you are talking about.

But it is not a fact that pro-life evangelicals are the same as pro-life Catholics are the same as Republicans are the same as racists are the same as death squad supporters.

[dutchmarbel]

Jes said: you know perfectly well that "saving babies" by forcibly preventing a woman who wants to terminate her pregnancy means forced pregnancy. That's what the "pro-life" movement is all about: trying to return to the evil days when a woman could legally be forced through pregnancy and childbirth against her will.

When an abortion is wanted or needed, the pregnancy is a fact - and most weren't forced. If the pregnancy is rather advanced, the fetus/baby needs to leave the womb *somehow*. I looked up our discussion at TiO and there you stated: "But, given that early deliveries at 32 weeks and after tend to have 90%+ healthy survival rates, I see no problem with legislation that says that after 32 weeks, a woman who wants to terminate a pregnancy must have an early delivery."

I replied that the chances are better than that, so I wondered wether you felt the decision should be based upon the 90% survival (I think that's 27 weeks or so) or at the 32 weeks gestation (with bigger heads and if those are not collapsed you earlier stated that that would be a very bad thing).

I do still think that allmost everybody agrees that it would be best of there were less abortions. So preventing unwanted pregnancies should be the main goal for all groups and most (religious) pro-life groups have a very bad track record. Wether she wants sex and wants to protect herself against pregnancies and diseases should be up to the woman and being well-informed and having access to contraception are basic necessities. If you do not promote those, "protecting babies" seems to be less important than taking the right to decide away from women.

[someotherdude]

The Religious Right, (the white right-wing evangelical fundamentalist, whatever) as we know it today, received its first taste of influence within the Republican Party with the Death Squads in the Third World. Evangelicals (stopped calling themselves Fundamentalists and Right-Wingers) were an incredible amount of help raising money and organizing pressure to promote the rise of right-wing authoritarian groups in the Third World. You know the Party of Life wanted to purify life in poor nations. Most of these organizations and fundamentalist strains within Protestantism were always “apolitical” and their mission was saving souls for Christ to prepare the world for the Second Coming. That was not enough, because no matter how many souls were being saved, the world was sending to many people to Hell, so political power became a priority.

Jimmy Carter was not the proper Southern Gentleman. He didn’t protect the religious racists and they realized the only way they were going to protect their “culture” was to get politically involved, on the Right. This was all during the late 70s and during the early 80’s they started to wage a war on the Godless Communists, in poor nations, and do battle with Modernity at home.

[Jesurgislac]

Marbel: When an abortion is wanted or needed, the pregnancy is a fact - and most weren't forced.

But at the point when you are told "No, if you decide to terminate we will prosecute you and your doctor" your pregnancy becomes a forced pregnancy, not your choice. As you're perfectly aware, since you've conceded on TIO that you believe at least you and your friends should get to choose, not be forced.

[liberal japonicus]

That's Dutch, our 'typical pro lifer'
/sarcasm

[Phil]

To be perfectly pedantic, it's a forced gestation, but why split hairs, since nobody's listening to anybody?

[dutchmarbel]

As you're perfectly aware, since you've conceded on TIO that you believe at least you and your friends should get to choose, not be forced.

I used to think it was due to my English skills, but I've come around to seeing it as a lack of proper reading skills on your part that makes you simplify my statements into something much more sensational but much less recognizable.

I actually was more interested in your answer on the question in the third paragraph ("so I wondered wether you felt the decision should be based upon the 90% survival (I think that's 27 weeks or so) or at the 32 weeks gestation").

[dutchmarbel]

If you really want to split hairs: it is a forced continuation of a gestation - or a pregnancy, since those two are kind of inseperable.

See, I listen to you ;)

[Francis]

my questions stand. If Roe falls, what would life in the US look like for pregnant women and those who would support her right to have an abortion?

[Jesurgislac]

Marbel: I actually was more interested in your answer on the question in the third paragraph ("so I wondered wether you felt the decision should be based upon the 90% survival (I think that's 27 weeks or so) or at the 32 weeks gestation").

My answer is that the pregnant woman gets to decide (or someone she has given the right to made medical decisions on her behalf, if she's not able to). She's the one affected, she's the one with all the information available to her, and if anyone else decides, they are forcing her, which is always wrong. What's your answer?

[Jesurgislac]

Marbel: I used to think it was due to my English skills, but I've come around to seeing it as a lack of proper reading skills on your part that makes you simplify my statements into something much more sensational but much less recognizable.

I'm sorry, Marbel: were you saying that you think that women should be forced through pregnancy against their will when they want to terminate? If so, I misread entirely your comment on TIO where you wrote that you thought your friend who decided to terminate her pregnancy had a right to make that decision.

[dutchmarbel]

What's your answer?
That your "the pregnant woman gets to decide" clashes with "I see no problem with legislation that says that after 32 weeks, a woman who wants to terminate a pregnancy must have an early delivery". My question was that, if you have no problem with legislation that says that a woman as from a certain period of gestation must choose for early delivery instead of abortion, should that be as from 32 weeks or as from 90% survival chance?

I misread entirely your comment on TIO where you wrote that you thought your friend who decided to terminate her pregnancy had a right to make that decision.

You seem to have missed the part where that always has to be in the second term whilst our discussion was about the third term. For future reference: I also repeatedly said that I thought the rules should be much more lenient in the US than in the Netherlands because our facilities and options are much better.

[Jesurgislac]

You seem to have missed the part where that always has to be in the second term whilst our discussion was about the third term.

Ah, I forgot that you think women lose the ability to make rational choices and have to be forced by outside authorities in late pregnancy.

That your "the pregnant woman gets to decide" clashes with "I see no problem with legislation that says that after 32 weeks, a woman who wants to terminate a pregnancy must have an early delivery".

I thought your question was about termination during the 27-32 week period?

My question was that, if you have no problem with legislation that says that a woman as from a certain period of gestation must choose for early delivery instead of abortion, should that be as from 32 weeks or as from 90% survival chance?

From 32 weeks. That's what I said, and - oddly enough - that's what I meant. (In practice, in the UK at least, this would mean from 28 weeks as doctors always figure that the start date of a pregnancy could be wrong by up to 4 weeks.) There are good reasons for legislators only legislating on independently-ascertainable and indisputable facts, which I will happily go into in more detail if you like.

[Jesurgislac]

For future reference: I also repeatedly said that I thought the rules should be much more lenient in the US than in the Netherlands because our facilities and options are much better.

For future reference: I think that the US ought to improve its facilities and options to the standards of the Netherlands. (I think my own country ought to, as well.)

[dutchmarbel]

Me: "You seem to have missed the part where that always has to be in the second term whilst our discussion was about the third term."

Jes: Ah, I forgot that you think women lose the ability to make rational choices and have to be forced by outside authorities in late pregnancy.

I guess you're not really open for anecdotes about how, in that stage of the pregnancy, I was glad if I could decide what to eat for dinner that day? But no, it is not about the womans ability to make rational choices, it is about the stage where the intrests of the child-to-be should be a serious consideration. Previously the intrests of the mother were leading, but in third term the child is imho more a person than an appendage and is thus entitled to some protection as a seperate entity.

Me: "That your "the pregnant woman gets to decide" clashes with "I see no problem with legislation that says that after 32 weeks, a woman who wants to terminate a pregnancy must have an early delivery"."

Jes: I thought your question was about termination during the 27-32 week period?

Me: My question was that, if you have no problem with legislation that says that a woman as from a certain period of gestation must choose for early delivery instead of abortion, should that be as from 32 weeks or as from 90% survival chance?

Jes: From 32 weeks. That's what I said, and - oddly enough - that's what I meant.

You say what you mean but do you also mean what you say? I often have to check...
You said given that early deliveries at 32 weeks and after tend to have 90%+ healthy survival rates, I see no problem with legislation that says that after 32 weeks, a woman who wants to terminate a pregnancy must have an early delivery., which implies that you decided upon the 32 weeks because you thought it had a 90% healthy survival rate. However, the 90% healthy survival rate occurs as from an earlier stage so if you felt that the healthy survival changes of the fetus/baby were the main deciding factor you might have changed the term.

Jes: (In practice, in the UK at least, this would mean from 28 weeks as doctors always figure that the start date of a pregnancy could be wrong by up to 4 weeks.)

So if I understand you correctly you think it is ok to have legislation that prevents a women from having an abortion after *in practise* 28 weeks, as long as she could decide to end the pregnancy by giving birth to the fetus/baby?

[Jesurgislac]

Marbel: But no, it is not about the womans ability to make rational choices, it is about the stage where the intrests of the child-to-be should be a serious consideration.

Regardless, Marbel: there is a woman concerned, even if you yourself are trying to pretend she's not there any more. At what point in your pregnanc(ies) did you consider that you no longer had the right to make decisions for yourself, but ought to hand that right over to the local legislature to decide for you?

which implies that you decided upon the 32 weeks because you thought it had a 90% healthy survival rate.

No, Marbel. I say 32 weeks because the BMA and all other medical authorities agree that if a premature baby is delivered at 32 weeks, there are no negative long-term effects. Earlier than that, and you can't count on there being none.

So if I understand you correctly you think it is ok to have legislation that prevents a women from having an abortion after *in practise* 28 weeks, as long as she could decide to end the pregnancy by giving birth to the fetus/baby?

If you understood me correctly, you'd understand that I think the woman gets to decide. Her body, her decision. Why do you find this so hard to understand?

The argument is persistently made - by you, in this comment I am responding to - that after a certain point in pregnancy, a woman ought to lose the right to decide for herself, and someone else gets to make decisions for her. (You've never said who ought to be able to force a woman after a certain stage of pregnancy, though as I recall, I've asked you several times.)

It's claimed this argument is based on controlling the woman on behalf of the fetus she's carrying, because she can't be allowed to make decisions for herself/the fetus she's gestating. (Why, you've never explained. What is this deep mistrust and disrespect you have for pregnant woman based on?)

But that argument is based on a faulty understanding of fetal development (as well as deep disrespect and contempt for pregnant women). If a woman can't be allowed to terminate by abortion because the fetus could survive, then logically enough, this restriction can only apply at the point where medical authorities agree that early delivery will not cause long-term damage to the infant: which is 32 weeks. Before that time, it would need to be down to the woman to decide: will she risk early delivery, abort, continue the pregnancy? Her body, her decision.

[Bernard Yomtov]

nazis sympathizers have become lazy these days

Well, that's good news. If we must have Nazis better that they be lazy than industrious.

[Phil]

dutchmarbel, how did you ever live with having such contempt for yourself during your own pregnancy? I mean, since Jes says that you have contempt for pregnant women, it follows logically, and she's always right about what other people think. So I'm just, you know, curious how you handled it.

[Jesurgislac]

Phil, I don't claim that Marbel felt this kind of contempt for herself. Women who identify as pro-life are as likely to exercise their right to choose as women who don't: it's other women that pro-life women think ought not to be allowed to make decisions for herself in pregnancy.

[dutchmarbel]

At what point in your pregnanc(ies) did you consider that you no longer had the right to make decisions for yourself, but ought to hand that right over to the local legislature to decide for you?

You ask the wrong question. At no point in my pregnancies did I consider that I no longer had the right to make decisions or to participate in them. But there came a point where it was not just about me and my body, but also about the baby growing in it. So the question is at which point did the growing cells become a person instead of an appendage. And I can't really point to a specific point, it feels like a gliding scale.

It wasn't when I first saw my eldest son, who at that time was an 8-cell embryo. Though I am still convinced that he was the embryo that was smart enough to have a packed lunch (one of the embryo's had an attached sugar cell) I don't feel I lost a baby when the second embryo didn't take. At that time it was just potential. Ditto for the first echo in which I saw the beating heart. I followed the development with all the ultrasound/inuterine pictures I could find and I realized it was no more than a little blurb.

At 11 weeks I had an ultrasound that showed limbs, and they were actually moving. I knew the riscs of losing the pregnancies had diminished greatly if I saw a beating heart and I was very focussed on that. When it actually waved it's little arms and legs at us from the ultrasound machine I was quite shocked. Yet, seeing the pictures and knowing the size still made me see it as potential more than as a baby.

With the first child I didn't feel it move till 23 weeks. As from that time it made it's presence well known though. It kicked my stomach and my blatter, and always when I would try to rest. That's when you realize that there is a rythme, that it falls asleep when you are active, rocked by your movement. But when the rocking stops, it often wakes up and becomes active.

That might very well be the stage where it became it's own person for me. Though parts of my body sometimes seems to have a life of their own they don't really have a sleeping pattern of their own. As from about week 24 we would have a ritual where I or the father of the child would put a warm hand against the belly and the baby would response by moving towards the hand and curling up against it. If you than move the hand to another spot, the baby will follow - a game we could play for hours.

By that time we knew it was a boy, we knew what we would call him and we allready prepared him for live outside. We sung songs, we read stories (I might still know dr Seuss' "baby oh baby" by heart, it was sent to me by someone from the american infertility mailinglists and we read it to bits) and we even painted it's little face on my belly to give it a stern talking too about not hurting mummy too much.

28 Weeks was a milestone, because you know babies have a really good chance as from then. They can be born earlier and still not have a problem, but I was totally fixed on the 28 weeks. Around that time I could sit in the sofa or in the bath and gaze upon my belly; it would ripple like a surfers paradise and it became a sport to try to name the appendages we would see sticking out. Was it a foot or a fist? Was that the butt or the head?

If you discuss abortions and just compare growing babies with appendages, if you focus so hard on the woman that you forget that there is a child growing inside here, I always assume that it is because you only see it on the outside and the baby/fetus is not *real* for you. But for me it is a very real thing. I've had three children growing inside of me and they were there, present, well before they were born.

I agree with you that the Religious Right tries to take away the sexual independency of women and that one should protest against that. I agree that a woman should have the right to decide about her own body and that having a child has at least initially much more impact on HER than on anybody else. I know better than you how hard childbirth can be and what bad effects it can have on your body. So no, I don't want to force every pregnant women into giving birth.

In the earlier stage of pregnancy I have absolutely no problem with abortions. Being pregnant and giving birth is hard, and it should only happen to people who want it. But there comes a point where the fetus has grown so much, where has become a viable person, and where that child-to-be enters the equation.

In a perfect world all mothers would want what's best for their children. But unfortunately we don't live in a perfect world. People don't always act in the best intrest of their children, of their babies. Once they are born we feel that we, as a society, should care about them and protect them if need be. For me, at the end of a pregnancy, there is allready a baby present. And thus should we, as a society, take acount of it's intrests and protects it if that is necessary.

That does not mean that we don't take acount of the womens intrests, it just means that we should weigh those against each other. That is why I feel that we, in the Netherlands, with all our options and facilities, should be more strict than the USA should be, since the restricted options and possibilities here put women at such a disadvantage.

If it is so hard to prevent unwanted pregnancies (half of the pregnancies in the US are unwanted, I was so shocked to learn that), if it is so hard to get rid of an unwanted pregnancy in the earlier stages, there should be more room to terminate the pregnancy in a later stage.

[Phil]

When you come across someone posting under the name "dutchmarbel" who claims to be "pro-life," you let us all know, m'kay?