Erick Erickson's Strange Loyalty Test

A Huntsman supporter emailed Ben Smith a biting retort to RedState.com's denunciation of the former Utah Governor.

Ironic that someone who suggested sending President Obama to the death panel is calling someone else disloyal to the President.

That's certainly one line of defense. And for sure it does seem bizarre to see one of the most vituperative commentators in the blogosphere attacking Huntsman for breaching political etiquette.

But let's take Erickson seriously. As I understand it, the Erickson code is that politics is a form of war. The RedState world is divided into three categories: (1) The Enemy, from President Obama downward. With them it is destroy or be destroyed. (2) Superior Officers, like Rush Limbaugh; to them is owed reflexive obedience. And (3) Subordinates, eg all Republican elected officials. They must obey or face the firing squad.

In this view, Huntsman is a baffling character. How is it possible to accept a nomination from a president and then run against him? True, Dwight Eisenhower accepted appointment as NATO commander from Harry Truman and then ran for president as a Republican in 1952. Eisenhower evidently believed that acceptance of a national security position was service to the United States as a whole, a service that did not imply endorsement of the domestic policies of the president who appointed him. But who remembers that ancient history? What matters is now! What matters is fighting the socialist Muslim Barack Obama with all weapons that come to hand! Any politician who can find any area of cooperation with a president of the other party - why such a figure is the worst of the worst.

True loyalty is always to put party before country, such seems to be the RedState idea. The Huntsman candidacy is a good place to test whether that view is as widely shared as Erickson believes - and as America's ill-wishers have always hoped.

Tweet