"The Republican Reformation"

Wow! The only thing more shocking than Mike Huckabee's startling ascendancy in Iowa was the former Governor of Arkansas' wide margin of victory over Manchurian Candidate-like Mitt Romney.

As I was telling a co-worker yesterday, I support Huckabee and like him a great deal, but not enough to defend him on all counts (who could support a national smoking ban? Are you kidding me?). I think the criticism of his lack of foreign policy knowledge and experience is valid -- but seriously, did Bill Clinton, Ronald Reagan or (ahem) George W. Bush have a lick of international affairs experience when they walked into the Oval Office? I think not. One way to remedy this problem and assemble a more bullet-proof ticket would be a McCain-Huckabee combo. Only a McCain-Huckabee candidacy would provide the necessary jump-start to what David Brooks (resident conservative columnist at the New York Times) calls the upcoming "Republican Reformation."

As usual, Brooks has his finger on the pulse of change -- this time on the upcoming Republican Schism. Last week, Brooks penned two columns -- one on Mitt Romney's "Power Point-mentality" and the other on the conventional-wisdom busting Huckabee -Obama victories in Iowa. Both are worth a read. From the Romney column:

If any Republican candidate is going to win this year, he will have to offer a new brand of Republicanism. But Romney has tied himself to the old brand...The leaders of the Republican coalition know Romney will lose. But some would rather remain in control of a party that loses than lose control of a party that wins. Others haven’t yet suffered the agony of defeat, and so are not yet emotionally ready for the trauma of transformation. Others still simply don’t know which way to turn.

And from the Iowa column:

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...Mitt Romney is now grievously wounded. Romney represents what’s left of Republicanism 1.0. Huckabee and McCain represent half-formed iterations of Republicanism 2.0.

The old guard, fusionist Republican will be crushed in the near future. Young people are turning against the GOP in droves. Immigrants, primarily from Latin America and seemingly a perfect fit for small government, traditional values Republicanism, are repulsed by the "Send the dark people home" rhetoric spewing from mainstream GOP politicians. (FYI: Most recent immigrants to the U.S. are socially and fiscally conservative -- they are not the enemy!). Political and cultural conservatives who dare to espouse a belief in, um, conservation -- are finding the life of an Independent, or even a Democrat, more palatable. The old three legged stool of economic liberalism, social conservatism and hawkish national security is populated by old men, who will all fade away in the next 20 years. That doesn't mean the old men are wrong -- but it does mean a new iteration of conservatism is necessary. Or maybe more accurately, a recovery of the older meaning of conservatism deserves some fresh faces. The Republican Reformation is still waiting for its Martin Luther, though Huckabee and McCain are probably forerunners to that candidate who will fully articulate the new conservatism.

BC