Insurgent Huckabee Summons Ghost of George Wallace from '68

Caution, Iowa: Republican Earthquake Approaching

As the hours wind down until the decisive Iowa caucus, the Republican Party finds itself in the quandary it has long sought to avoid -- the inevitable rift between social/religious conservatives and corporate conservatives. No two candidates in recent memory have more epitomized each than the former Baptist minister, Mike Huckabee of Arkansas, and the former venture capitalist, Mitt Romney of Massachusetts.

The fault lines were quite stark in the past two nights, as Huckabee's "Chuck and Huck" event Tuesday night bore absolutely no resemblance to Romney's rally in West Des Moines this evening. The Huckabee crowd, whooping shouts of "Hallelujah" and "Amen, Mike," was decidedly blue-collar, working class supporters out to cheer on their anointed champion. On the other hand, Romney's crowd was staid, plaid, and polite, but their candidate elicited about as many raucous cheers as Don Imus would at a Rutgers home game.

Of course, a Huckabee victory would set off tremors in the Republican Party that might lead to a wholesale tectonic shift should be continue to gain support. While Romney might patch up the bruised Reagan coalition, Huckabee would simply tear it apart.

All of this division within the conservative electorate hasn't been seen since the 1968 election, when George Wallace was barnstorming the country preaching the gospel of white populism to all who would hear him. Huckabee -- sans the segregation issue Wallace is most identified with -- seems to be conjuring up crowds of a similar demographic makeup. These supporters, long suspect of political candidates promising them action on red-meat social issues, seem drawn to Huckabee's message of social conservatism and economic, well, liberalism, in a way reminiscent of Wallace in '68. While Wallace wasn't railing against integration, he was attracting blue-collar whites from out of the woodwork to hear his unusual mix of policies.

And while George Wallace certainly wasn't a Republican and wasn't running neck-and-neck with any major presidential contender, he received enough support to further separate culturally conservative voters from their previous party.

In the '68 election, it was Richard Nixon who represented the establishment conservatives, the Wall-Street types who didn't care for Wallace's demagoguery or, for that matter, his populist economic policies for the working class. These days, it's Romney attempting to hold on to "the Reagan coalition of economic, social, and military conservatives" that he mentioned as the three core foundations of his support, but it's obvious, both in his personal background and in the appearances of his rally attendees, that he has succeeded most at attracting the first part of those three pillars.

Huckabee, meanwhile, can channel the Biblical language to entice religious conservatives to his cause by campaigning against homosexual rights and against abortion rights. But his economic message is altogether different. Chuck Norris even praised Huckabee's proposal for a "Fair Tax" because he mentioned how rich he was and how he was willing to pay a bigger tax share so working-class families could be eased of their tax burden.

To borrow Romney's favorite phrase, Huckabee is certainly failing Reagan 101.
But as for Wallace 101, Huckabee might stand to receive better marks.