Huckabee

Well, that’s what the headline writer probably wants you to think. Here’s what the candidate said:

Leaving it up to individual states to outlaw abortion within their own borders is not enough, he said.

“That’s again the logic of the Civil War — that slavery could be okay in Georgia but not okay in Massachusetts. Obviously we’d today say, ‘Well, that’s nonsense. Slavery is wrong, period. It can’t be right somewhere and wrong somewhere else.’ Same with abortion,” Huckabee said.

So it’s not the kind of rhetoric one would want to use if one were trying to reach out to middle-of-the-road voters, or to those who haven’t really given the subject of abortion much thought. (These people exist, you know.) But it’s ideologically coherent; if one believes abortion is wrong, period, then one believes it ought to be outlawed everywhere, period.

I’m not wild about Huckabee myself. And, as I said elsewhere, I don’t believe legislation is the answer to the problem of casual abortion – at least, it’s not the only answer. But you sure can’t accuse Huckabee of wobbling. And that I like.

______________________________________________

Andrea adds: The media put headlines on stories, and then other media incredulously pick up on them. That is a terrible, biased, convoluted headline–and all the candidates should be allowed to have their citations stand in full so that voters can read them and choose.

On a different note: The abortion-slavery comparison gets at another mantra we repeat often, that abortion is strictly a private issue. Was not slavery a private issue too? As in, you can have slaves, or not have them, and that’s your choice? Shouldn’t bother you if I purchase a couple at the market this weekend. My life is busy these days. Heck, I could use one to help moderate comments on this site. Trust me, if I had slaves, I’d treat them well–which should make all of you feel better about the fact that I have them. Right?

If I were in an endorsing kind of mood, I wouldn’t pick Mike Huckabee. Nonetheless, his sudden uptick in Iowa is fascinating. In a contest that has so far dealt largely with the economy, immigration and national security, rather than social and cultural issues, David Broder makes the argument that there is something going on under the surface (free registration req’d.):

Huckabee understands how middle-class anxiety is really lived. […] [R]eal middle-class families have more to fear economically from divorce than from a free trade pact. A person’s lifetime prospects will be threatened more by single parenting than by outsourcing. Huckabee understands that economic well-being is fused with social and moral well-being, and he talks about the inter-relationship in a way no other candidate has.

Social and human capital are what enable individuals and groups to thrive. When communities can’t generate this capital for whatever reason, governments step in, and their solutions are usually ham-handed, expensive, and inefficient. Fiscal conservatism, small governments and shrinking budgets are only viable when most people are functional, stable, and autonomous, and there has yet to be a more effective way to develop such people than in a family. I’m a bit puzzled that this theme has been lacking so far in the primary season, but perhaps it’s there, in the subtext. It will be interesting to see if it emerges more clearly in the debates ahead.

Gaaaack! Huckabee calls abortion slavery!!!

Is it primary season already?

Meta