Why is Mike Huckabee surging in the polls?

  He’s not only moved into a five point lead in Iowa (according to the latest Des Moines Register Poll) but he’s also in second place in Florida and within striking distance of the lead in South Carolina (which is virtually a four way tie).

   Some voices in the Romney camp suggest that the recent strength of the former Arkansas governor derives from religious bigotry. According to this logic, Evangelical Christians who can’t accept Mitt’s Mormonism, have rallied to the Baptist Pastor, Huckabee. Romney’s scheduled speech on Thursday at the George H. W. Bush Presidential Library in Texas will confront the doubts about his affiliation with the LDS church and, Romney supporters ardently hope, show skeptical Christians that he shares their values. Meanwhile, they focus on the religious prejudice against their candidate because it offers the only comfortable explanation for the fact that no poll shows him with a strong Iowa lead over Huckabee despite outspending his Arkansas rival by a ratio of some 20 to 1.

    Meanwhile, other campaigns (Thompson, Giuliani) dismiss Huckabee’s growing support as a fluke and a flash-in-the-pan, focusing on his tepid fund-raising success (even Crazy Uncle Ron Paul has raised far more) and his lack of organization in the states that follow Iowa in short order. Some talk show hosts have even discerned a media conspiracy in the press coverage of Huckabee in the last few days—suggesting that liberal journalists are building up the former clergyman as a way of discrediting the Republican Party as rural and fundamentalist, while undermining the only GOP contenders with a real chance of winning in November.

   Actually, it seems obvious that the real reason for the intense media attention to the Huck Man involves an irresistible story line: the ultimate underdog coming out of nowhere with charm and folksy humor to challenge established candidates with vastly more financial resources and greater name recognition. In baseball, the Colorado Rockies became a huge story for a few weeks, beating teams with big-name stars and lavish payrolls in a hugely improbably winning streak – until the well-funded Red Sox machine crushed them in the World Series.  America loves “Cinderella” stories in politics as well as sports, and in that context the “Impossible Dream” of a President Huckabee makes a great fairy tale--- at least until he wakes up during he primary process and finds out the glass slipper doesn’t fit, or that his White House coach has turned back into a pumpkin.

     Aside from eternal affection for an underdog, there’s another crucial factor driving Huckabee’s surge: he’s run a far more positive, less petty, less bitter campaign than his prominent rivals. “I’m a conservative, but I’m not angry about it,” Huckabee tells eager crowds. Meanwhile, Rudy and Romney snipe at each other with childish, demeaning, “gotcha” assaults (who didn’t cringe at the “Sanctuary City” vs. “Sanctuary Mansion” exchange in the last debate?) and damage their credibility, dignity and stature.

    For Giuliani in particular, his recent counter-punching with Romney makes America’s greatest mayor look sad and small: in asking the confidence of his fellow citizens for the nation’s highest office at a time of terrorist and economic threat, does it truly matter that his opponent once contracted with a landscaping company that may have employed illegal aliens?.

   Huckabee, meanwhile, floats above the battle and conveys an unshakable sense of warmth, decency, good humor, and unmistakable (and appropriate) affection for his Republican opponents.

   It’s not an accident that in nomination battles since 1980, the most affable, positive, optimistic Republican candidate always wins. Reagan and both Bushes earned the Presidency because they shunned anger (unlike rivals like Bob Dole or Pat Buchanan or the 2000 model John McCain) and came across as pleasant personalities, comfortable in their own skin.

   In this sense, Huckabee fits the bill – and naturally gains on his bickering competitors.

   Meanwhile, it’s also worth a few lines here to defend the Arkansan from the claim that he’s a secret “big government liberal” or, in the phrase of the Club for Growth, “Tax Hike Mike.”

   According to figures from the non-partisan Tax Foundation (based on data from the Bureau of Economic Analysis, Department of Commerce), Huckabee’s term as governor (1996-2007) led to a modest increase in the overall State-Local tax burden for Arkansas: from 10.1% in the year he became governor to 11.1% the last year he served. In terms of overall tax burden (state-local-federal) Arkansas remained virtually unchanged--- from 30.3% (39^th among the 50 states) to 30.5% (32^nd place).

   Mitt Romney, on the other hand, saw sharper increases in taxes during his single gubernatorial term (2003 to 2007) in Massachusetts. The state-local burden rose from 9.8% the year of his election to 10.5% his last year as governor. Meanwhile, the total tax burden went up from 31.2% to 33.9% -- vaulting Massachusetts from 9^th place to 7^th place in the nation.
   These numbers don’t prove that Huckabee was a great governor, or that Romney was a poor governor: actually, both men count as exemplary public servants and authentic conservatives (and both of them have taken Grover Norquist’s “No New Taxes” Pledge—in contrast to their rivals Giuliani, Thompson and McCain, who have refused to do so). Both candidates deserve respect for doing a solid job in handling state legislatures with overwhelming Democratic majorities and scoring some notable achievements as governor (though both states flipped to Democratic control in 2006).

    For those who are interested in the truth, however, the growth of the tax burden in Arkansas under 11 years of Huckabee looks no worse (and actually a tad better) than the growth of taxes in Massachusetts under 4 years of Romney.

   Oh yes, and as to the total tax burden under President Bush---

   Federal Taxes went down from 22.5% in 2001 to 21.7% this year, and the total tax burden (including state-local-and-federal) shrank from 33.0% to 32.7%. Inspiring progress? Hardly. But in view of the substantial cost of defending the nation against the terrorist threat, it certainly counts as a step in the right direction.

   One can only hope that Huckabee, Romney or any other Republican will more decisively in that direction (particularly through tax simplification), while all Democrats have announced their attention to raise taxes. On this particular Democratic promise, there's every reason to believe them.