The candidate chose to occupy his snow day with a moral blunder of the first order — accepting the endorsement of Jim Gilchrist, the founder of an anti-immigrant group called the Minuteman Project. ~Michael Gerson
Gerson has turned on the “compassionate” conservative candidate pretty quickly here. Not because of the man’s real moral blunders (see Wayne Dumond et al.), but because he associates himself with restrictionists and adopts restrictionist proposals. In Gerson’s moral universe, opposition to illegal immigration and support for border security seem to be among the worst errors one can make (”a moral blunder of the first order,” he says). Ironically, Gerson’s criticism of Huckabee’s embrace of Gilchrist is just the kind of thing Huckabee needs in the nomination contest to shore up his reputation as an “authentic conservative” (as his advertisements refer to him). Anything that will distance him from Gerson and “compassionate conservatism” is a plus for him, since it undermines the argument that the rest of us are promoting that Huckabee is in many ways not conservative and is not the candidate that conservatives should want to support. Gerson’s disapproval may become for some people another reason to give Huckabee another look, when they should not even give him a first look.
Considering Huckabee’s incredibly small campaign staff, this question was quite amusing:
Did someone vet Gilchrist’s past statements?
The candidate doesn’t even have someone to brief him about leading news stories on national security, and we’re supposed to expect a rigorous vetting process of endorsers? The strange thing is that Huckabee’s transparent flip on immigration probably won’t hurt him that much, despite what Gerson thinks it will do to his reputation for “authenticity.” The beauty of a politician having a reputation for authenticity is that it is almost always undeserved. In any case, it can be effectively faked by clever performers, and there’s no doubt that Huckabee is that if he is nothing else. Further, all of his main rivals have been as bad or worse on immigration than he was. I was going to say, “except for Fred Thompson,” but Thompson isn’t really a main rival anymore. This means that their collective stampede to the right on immigration gives him plenty of cover to transform himself cynically into an anti-amnesty, border-enforcing champion. Unbelievably, Iowan restrictionist voters are buying into it right now.
4 comments
Comments feed for this article
December 14th, 2007 at 7:21 am
expertlaw
Immigration issues “rank right up there” for some religions, including the Catholic Church.
I’m not aware of any church which devotes any appreciable resources to opposing executive clemency, or condemning governors who are too forgiving of inmates (no matter how poor their judgment).
December 14th, 2007 at 12:09 pm
Daniel Larison
Okay, those are fair points. Let me try that again. Gerson takes it as more or self-evident that the Minutemen represent something unbelievably foul and “toxic,” and he chooses association with this group as a moral blunder “of the first order” while ignoring the Dumond case, where it really isn’t just a case of Huckabee’s overactive desire to be merciful. If we want to talk about Huckabee’s blunders, moral and otherwise, it seems to me that we would start there and work our way down to a Jim Gilchrist endorsement. Moral blunders “of the first order” are probably much more serious than this, even if you accepted Gerson’s assumption that the Minutemen were horrible.
December 14th, 2007 at 4:53 pm
expertlaw
Whether or not moral issues attach - whatever his motivation - the larger theme I see in your posts about Huckabee is that he has a propensity to support to some really bad ideas. I can’t argue with that, and the Dumond case can be viewed as a cautionary tale about happens when Huckabee has both a bad idea and the power to advance it.
December 15th, 2007 at 1:52 am
Zarathustra
It’s difficult to imagine just how complete one’s disconnect from anything vaguely resembling reality would have to be to believe that support for strong enforcement of immigration laws is a near “fatal” error for someone running for the Republican nomination for President. Then again, Gerson did come from the Bush Administration, so I suppose it really shouldn’t be all that surprising that his feet are firmly planted on Candy Cane Lane.
The most risible line, though, is that pro-enforcement politics “should be covered with brown paper, kept under the counter and hidden from children.” No Mikey, the person who should cover himself with brown paper and hidden under the counter is your former boss, who believes that he can unilaterally “decide” not to enforce the laws he doesn’t want enforced.