Kathleen Parker January 24, 2014

We know what Mike Huckabee meant. Sort of. Kind of. But, really?

Huckabee, the former Arkansas governor and Republican presidentialcandidate, talk-show host and erstwhile Baptist preacher, was trying todemythologize the alleged GOP “war on women” so brilliantly defined byDemocrats in 2012.

Speaking at the Republican National Committee winter meeting Thursday, Huckabee said it was time to “no longer accept listening to the Democrats talk about a war on women.” Republicans aren’t waging a war on women, he said. “They have a war for women.”

The alleged war on women was based essentially on the notion that people who think abortion is a bad idea — or who don’t think thegovernment should mandate insurance coverage for birth-control coverage — are anti-woman. Democrats point mainly to new state laws that havelimited access to abortion, not to mention the unforgettableobservations of a few Republican men about “legitimate” rape and so on.

Whatever one’s own position, Republicans could be characterized as waging a waron women only if no women agreed with the premises mentioned above.Protecting the rights of the unborn and fighting for freedom ofconscience are not concerns only of men nor should reproduction be thepurview only of women.

But leave alone for a moment theprinciples and postulations of the reproductive debate. Most Americanshave carved out their positions by now, and the arguments arewell-enough known. What Huckabee was saying was that women are not justpackages of reproductive parts whose lives are circumscribed by accessto birth control. This is the thinking he ascribes to Democrats.Instead, he said, Republicans are fighting a war for women “to beempowered to be something other than victims of their gender.”

Not bad so far, but then . . . uh-oh.

“And if the Democrats want to insult the women of America by making thembelieve that they are helpless without Uncle Sugar coming in andproviding for them a prescription each month for birth control becausethey cannot control their libido or their reproductive system withoutthe help of the government, then so be it, let us take that discussionall across America because women are far more than the Democrats haveplayed them to be.”

That is one long sentence, punctuated with severalhighlight-worthy words — “helpless,” “libido,” “Uncle Sugar” and, neverfar from the male Republican mind, “reproductive system.”

Paging Dr. Freud . . .

As Republicans can’t seem to learn, it’s all in how you saythings. Even if Huckabee was only describing how he believes Democratsthink of women, he may have parted the curtain on his own unconsciousprocesses. Who, really, is worried about women’s libidos?

No onein the debate about health insurance coverage of birth control hasconcerned himself with libido-related concerns except, notably, RushLimbaugh. It was he who made the leap from Sandra Fluke’s insistencethat health insurance should cover birth control to his conclusion thatFluke is, therefore and obviously, a “slut.” (A far shorter leap isrequired to infer that sitting alone in a room talking for three hours a day into a large, golden microphone millimeters from one’s oral cavityundoubtedly allows the mind to wander.)

Alas, and sadly forHuckabee, his introduction of the libido and all subsequent mentalassociations not only distracted from his essential message but alsoplaced him squarely in the frame with Limbaugh. One is justified inwondering: Why do these men concern themselves so much with what womendo with their, ahem, “reproductive systems”?

Does Huckabee really think that Democrats are wedded to the idea that women can’t functionwithout “Uncle Sugar” offering medications to thwart ovulation andfertilization? Even Uncle Sugar is creepy. No doubt intended as a clever twist on Uncle Sam, he sounds like the lurking uncle who tradeschocolate for a smooch on the upstairs landing.

Huckabee isusually better than this. His sane, jocular temperament is what won himfans and plaudits. Recall his saying, “I’m a conservative, but I’m notmad at anybody about it.” His RNC comments, by contrast, sounded likesomeone priming the base at the expense of sound thinking.

Ratherthan end the idea of a Republican war on women, Huckabee has merelyprovided fresh fodder to Democrats, while reminding women why they don’t want to associate with this crowd. Clue-less.

To his credit,Huckabee wrapped up with sage counsel that he might redirect to includehis brethren: “Women across America need to stand up and say, enough ofthat nonsense.”

Tell it, preacher.