It gets silly however when some right-wingers start calling Mike Huckabee an “economic liberal” because he espouses the same, traditionally conservative trade policies George Washington, Alexander Hamilton and Calvin Coolidge believed in. Such labeling is nearly the opposite of the truth. If this is what we get for indulging right-wing libertarians in calling themselves “economic conservatives,” then maybe we need to start gently challenging the label.

Authentic conservatives are more likely to be informed by Belloc and Chesterton than by Hayek. If we called Belloc and Chesterton “economic conservatives” now, however, folks would think us out of our minds. Oh, well. That’s how confused the terminology has become.

HJH

I am afraid that I have no single yardstick by which to measure all candidates, nor can I sum up in a few words why I might support Hillary Clinton (but not Barack Obama) over some Republicans this year.

You can blame John Savage for my reservations against Mr. Huckabee, though “unacceptable” might be much too strong an adjective against Mr. Huckabee in my case. I think Mr. Huckabee a nice man, but John has persuaded me that he is too soft in the head. You are right, though: Mr. Huckabee is indeed substantially wrong on immigration. I am fairly willing to let a candidate change his mind on immigration because I have changed my own mind on immigration, but even after changing his mind, Mr. Huckabee still is substantially wrong.

So is Mr. Romney, of course. You can blame yourself for my reservations against Mr. Romney, but my reservations do not yet run so deep that I would consider voting Democratic against Mr. Romney in the general election.

Regarding immigration, almost all the candidates are fairly awful, except Duncan Hunter whom I support and Ron Paul who is my second choice. Twenty years ago I was awful on immigration, too (I have no good excuse, except that a lot of us Americans were awful on immigration together). Immigration politics generally are trending the right way now, but it’s like an aircraft carrier: it won’t stop on a dime, and I refuse to despair if it doesn’t. What I like about Mr. Romney’s immigration policy is that he wants to replace low-skilled immigration with highly skilled immigration—which is not as good as zero immigration but which is a major improvement. Highly skilled, non-Muslim immigrants speak English, pay taxes and and have high-IQ kids who do not roam the streets looking for stop signs to spray-paint.

You are correct that I trust Mr. Romney to secure the border more than I trust Mr. Huckabee to do it. Mr. Romney will do it because he sees it as his job, and because he’s the kind of man that gets his job done, whether he likes it or not. I am afraid that Mr. Huckabee once in office might drag his feet in much the same way that George W. Bush has done.

Thanks for the follow-up question. If I’ve not properly answered in your view, please advise.

Howard

A partially irrelevant datum: The Republicans have my vote if they nominate Hunter, Paul, Thompson or Romney. If Huckabee, Giuliani or, especially, McCain, then the Democrats can win my vote. In the extreme case—McCain against Clinton—I would vote Clinton with a clear conscience and a smile on my face. Huckabee against Obama would retain my vote for Huckabee. McCain against Obama would probably make me throw my vote away on a third party. Other combinations would leave my vote in play during the 2008 campaign.

To you, the datum is partially irrelevant in that I am very much a social conservative rather than one of the economic conservatives to which your article refers. Naturally I claim to speak for no one but myself (although my wife’s sentiments at least are fairly similar to mine).

Anyway, if the information is interesting, then make of it what you will.

Howard