It took me until just recently to finally admit that Rush Limbaugh is adamantly opposed to Mike Huckabee. Up to now, I had recognized that Mr. Limbaugh--like any other citizen--had a favorite candidate, and that there was only a 1 in 5 chance of it being Mike Huckabee. But now, after reading his daily update, I am convinced that Mr. Limbaugh has a strong negative bias against Gov. Huckabee.
The purpose of this posting is not to criticize Mr. Limbaugh (or Mr. Hannity, who has long been a Guiliani supporter) or anyone else for that matter. No, these men have their opinions, and they are entitled to have them and to express them openly. In fact, this is what they are paid millions of dollars each year to do.
Rather, my intention is to delve into the reason why Mr. Limbaugh in particular (and Mr. Hannity, to a lesser extent) seem to exhibit a bias against Gov. Huckabee.
When it all boils down, there are three distinct sections of the Republican coalition: (1) Fiscal conservatives, (2) social conservatives, and (3) defense conservatives. Now, these sections are not mutally-exclusive of each other. In fact, Messrs. Limbaugh and Hannity would boldly proclaim that they are members of all three groups.
However, the vast majority of Republicans fit in only one or two of these categories; hardly do they fit in all three. Even when Republicans do simultaneously espouse all three of these distinct characteristics, their respective priorities are not identical. Some place fiscal issues ahead of social issues. Others place the social ahead of the fiscal. (One could list all of the permutations very easilty.)
From what I have gathered, Messrs. Limbaugh and Hannity place social conservatism at the bottom of their respective lists. Therefore, when a candidate like Mike Huckabee puts social conservatism at the front of the line, the talk giants become scared. Here is why:
Fiscal conservatism deals primarily with money and taxation, right? Well, if you think about it, money is measured in analog terms. By this, I mean, wealth is not an "either-or" situation. There are people who have more money than I do, but they are not necessarily wealthy. Likewise, there are people who have less money than Bill Gates, but they are not necessarily poor. There are varying degrees of wealth (or poverty, as the case may be.)
Conversely, much of social conservatism deals with discrete events. Either abortion remains legal, or it is banned. Either gay marriage is legalized or it is prohibited. By and large, social conservatives do not see varying degrees of legalized abortion or sanctioned gay marriage. For social conservatives, the fight for our culture is an all or nothing affair.
In a purely pragmatic sense, Republicans who place fiscal issues ahead of social issues believe that we have more to lose fiscally than we could ever lose socially.
To such a person, the issue of abortion, for example, cannot get any worse. If a Democrat (or a liberal Republican) is elected President, abortion-rights will likely not expand. (Yes, there might be attempts to lift the bans on late-term abortions, but even if these bans are lifted, the actual number of abortions will likely remain constant.) Conversely, if a Democrat is elected, our collective gains on fiscal issues may be erased when taxes increase to record highs and the deficit balloons to stratospheric levels.
However, what these pragmatic Republicans fail to realize is that our fiscal stability is a direct function of our social strength.
Take the issue of abortion. But for abortion on demand, our economy would have generated more than $421 billion in social security taxes over the last 20 years. Here is how:
In 1973, the Supreme Court legalized abortion in all 50 states. Since that time, the Alan Guttmacher Institute reports the number of abortions as follows for the years 1973-1992:
Year --------- Number of Abortions (Yr)
1973---744,600
1974---898,600
1975---1,034,200
1976---1,179,300
1977---1,316,700
1978---1,409,600
1979---1,497,700
1980---1,553,900
1981---1,577,300
1982---1,573,900
1983---1,575,000
1984---1,577,200
1985---1,588,600
1986---1,574,000
1987---1,559,100
1988---1,590,800
1989---1,567,000
1990---1,609,000
1991---1,556,500
1992---1,528,900
Pretend that these children had not been aborted. Assume for the sake of this analysis that each of these aborted children had grown up, only to make the least possible contribution to our economy, by earning minimum wage for their entire working lives.
The 744,600 children aborted in 1973 would have turned age 15 in the year 1988. Back then, the minimum wage was $3.35 per hour. Working 40 hours per week for 50 weeks per year, these 744,600 children would have earned $4,988,820,000.00 in 1988.
In 1989, the 898,600 children who were aborted in 1974 would have started working, along with the 744,600 children who had been aborted in 1973. These 1,643,200 children, working 2,000 hours per year, would have earned $11,009,440,000.00 in 1989.
In 1990, the minimum wage increased to $3.80 per hour. As such, the 1,034,200 children who were aborted in 1975--along with the 1,643,200 children who were aborted in 1973 and 1974--would have earned $20,348,240,000.00.
You could go on and on until you get to the year 2007, when the 1,528,900 children who were aborted in the year 1992 would have gone to work for the first time. These children, along with the 26,983,000 children who had been aborted from 1973 through 1991, would have earned $333,589,230,000.00 in wages in 2007 alone, by earning only $5.15 an hour.
In all, these aborted children would have earned a total $2,807,884,880,000.00 from 1988 to 2007. Social security taxes generated from this revenue (paid by the employee and the employer) would have equalled $421,182,732,000.00
You see, by embracing social conservatism, we actually make fiscal conservatism possible.
Had we fought tooth and nail to stop abortion way back then, we wouldn't be worrying about "saving social security" now. Instead, our economy would be generating enough money to preserve social security for the next century.
By fighting abortion, we promote the future economic growth of our nation.
By promoting strong families, where work ethics are handed down from generation to generation, we undermine the welfare state.
Yet, when we embrace the fiscal to the exclusion of the social, we actually undermine the very foundation for our nation's prosperity.
In the final analysis, I believe that Messrs. Limbaugh and Hannity truly are fiscal and social conservatives, but they have placed the fiscal ahead of the social--to the very detriment of the fiscal policies they are trying to promote.
Shortsightedly, these pragmatic Republicans are stepping over dollars to pick up dimes.
Indeed, the fiscal conservatives would be much better off supporting a social conservative like Mike Huckabee.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
5 comments:
I believe it is Fair Tax that scares them. Politicians have tax law to buy themselves votes, and they are friends with media. They convince media that fair tax is a pipe dream, and off to the races go the talking heads.
Good analysis. Something to ponder. Also playing into the talking heads and even the high profile Christian Leadership is their hatred/fear of the Clintons. They have bought into the win at any cost mentality. I think they have completely lost touch with their constituency. We'll see what happens.
As a Huckabee supporter I do vote social first. I am a Pastor, and i cannot bring myself to vote against another fellow laborer in Christ. However I must say, I disagree with your analysis... Rush or Hannity do very much care fiscal more then anything.. however they have concerns that are truly valid. The main line in question is:
WHAT IS THE ROLE OF GOVERNMENT? Does Huckabee want to expand the role? There is some evidence that yes he does, there is some evidence that no he doesnt. I think we need to get more specifics on foreign policy, education, subsidies.. all of these things will paint a clearer picture. However the more Religion is injected the more these issues will never play out.
Never forget that the desire to limit the role of government is simply a manifestation of one's fiscal conservatism or one's social conservatism. For example, evangelicals may want to restrict the role of government because they do not want the government teaching political correctness to their children under the auspices of the public schools, or they may want to limit the welfare state because they see lives that are destroyed as a result of the entitlement mentality. Conversely, fiscal conservatives may want to restrict the role of government because they see such interference as being an impediment to their financial portfolios; high taxes take their money while deficit spending devalues their money. Either way, our reasons for restrict government is a direct result of our fiscal or social conservatism.
Good article, Matt.
I am a Huckabee supporter and agree with you. I also believe that much of the power in the Republican party is comprised of mostly fiscal conservatives who have courted social conservatives simply to strengthen the party's base.
Governor Huckabee is fiscally conservative, but not enough for the Club For Greed folks who seem to care about nothing but profit. They know that Huckabee is a man of honor and conviction who has spoken out against corporate greed and won't be their puppet.
This is why many in the Republican Establishment have backed Giuliani-they don't really care about the social issues.
Sadly, several prominent Christian leaders refuse to back Huckabee (Dobson, Bauer, etc) even though he is exactly in line with the social issues they fight for so desperately. I believe that they fear losing their seat at the power table if they back Huckabee. Dobson is adamently opposed to Giuliani and all other candidates, but surprisingly he has not spoken out against Romney. I believe Romney is becoming the compromise candidate for the Republicans- he has promised to be fiscally and socially conservative to get elected (even though his record shows evidence to the contrary).
It appears that Giuliani is fading and the Establishment is now pushing Romney in an effort to appease both social and fiscal conservatives in the party.
Post a Comment