Election 2008 brings to my mind a poem of Robert Frost’s. “Some say the world will end in fire,” says the poem, but “some say in ice.” The images conjure up graphic manifestations of two intangible vices – desire and hate, respectively. Will the Republicans nominate a candidate out of hate, someone who represents few or none of the principles for which they stand, someone like Huckabee – simply to put the Democrats and the secularists in their place? Or will they nominate Romney, who might be a wildcard but who has at least given lip service to our principles?

Honest analysts will acknowledge that they really are the last two men standing in the Republican primary. Romney has had a mostly solid lead in New Hampshire – save for the Union Leader newspaper giving him its anti-endorsement, a good sign that at least liberals believe he’s the best conservative in the pack.

So we are left with a two person race. Unless it’s a race wholly undetermined by the time Super Tuesday arrives on February 5^th, I will find myself voting for Ron Paul. However, were I to make a second choice, it would be for Romney.

His voting record as governor is clearly abhorrent – no one will object to that. But Huckabee’s is as well. While one promises to change if he becomes president, the other promises nothing.

Huckabee calls global warming “a spiritual issue,” and thinks that if we are going to “believe that God is the creator of the earth,” the government must advocate for environmentalism. 

He wants to provide the children of illegals with free college education. He opposed requiring anyone provide proof of citizenship to vote. His administration pushed to provide illegal immigrants with driver’s licenses.

Huckabee’s record is abhorrent, and so are his plans for the presidency. But I understand where he derives his support from. The Christian right appreciates him. The problem is that their motivation for civic involvement stems solely from the religious. Barely, if any, of their interest comes from interest in the philosophical.

They don’t pay much attention to politics. They don’t care very much about the issues, save for what they perceive as religiously relevant. Economic policy is irrelevant to them, because few of them understand or care about it. Try asking one of them at a caucus whether they prefer the fair tax or a flat tax. They probably won’t know the difference.

What they’ll be able to tell you is that Romney is a Mormon and that Huckabee is a Baptist.

Their passion is a corollary of idealism. Aside from the religiously fervent, that idealism is mostly a characteristic of youth. It has always had a role in politics, and it is often a useful one. It gives candidates like Ron Paul credibility, and it may have been the sole basis of Barack Obama’s ability to overcome the seasoned corruption that is the essence of Hillary Clinton.

But when that passion becomes more than just one competing aspect of a movement, finding itself instead to be the entire foundation, a necessary balance has been lost.

Huckabee has found himself to be the candidate not just of the religious or of the youthful, but of both. He’s received support from homeschoolers and from icons of the movement, such as Michael Farris, from the beginning of his campaign. 

Romney conspicuously is not the candidate of passion. He is a candidate of contemplative deliberation. The Wall Street Journal quoted one Iowan saying of Huckabee that he “is more in touch with people from the middle class and lower class” than Romney. In other words, Romney is too professional. That’s a characteristic I’ve always admired; but most people do not.

By nominating Romney, the Republican Party will not be selling its soul. Were he to emulate Bush by rewarding his electors with additional increases in federal spending and with court nominations reminiscent of Harriet Miers, it would be illustrative of our stupidity to elect him again in 2012. But for now, it would seem there is no better choice.