I'm befuddled. I don't often feel that way about political developments (as opposed to automobile repair or home improvement), but I simply do not understand the shape of the Republican primary field. With recent announcements (Pawlenty) and withdrawals (Barbour, Huckabee,Trump, and Daniels), the "frontrunning," respectable candidates as anointed by the media this morning appear to be former Governors Mitt Romney, Tim Pawlenty, and Jon Huntsman. The first was, in effect, a moderate Democratic Governor of Massachusetts, the second was the incompetent and charisma-challenged Governor of Minnesota, and the third was the devil's (Obama) ambassador to the 2nd ring of Communist-inspired hell (China). In 2008, would I have ever voted for a Democratic candidate who served in Bush's Administration? No. No, I would not and I cannot believe Republicans will act any differently.
I'm shocked at what's missing. In the past several decades, the Republican Party has rooted itself in the south, denounced government, extolled Christian fundamentalist values, and, after Bush II, became increasingly dubious about those beyond our borders, not to mention those trying to cross our borders. None of these three candidates meet any of those standards; all would probably have to waste a VP slot on a person (Barbour? Rubio?) who could shore up their geographic home and 2 of the 3 are Mormon, a disquieting fact for at least a good third of the base. What then could happen? Let me offer a rhetorical forecast, one admittedly based not on current polling, etc., but rather based on three constitutive elements of the Republican rhetoric. Let's be clear: I don't know who will win the nomination, but I have a sense of the sort of candidate who will win the hearts of the party faithful.
1) The Republican Party hates government: Notice that I did not write "big" government. The strong, seemingly fringe, emphasis in recent years on the 10th amendment, on "federalism" as "right-thinking" conservatives understand it, on state's rights, much less the multiple discourses of business leaders objecting to financial regulation, NRA activists touting all manner of pro-gun laws, and Tea Party activists screaming about taxes marks a noticeable shift in conservative discourse. It's not enough to argue, as former governors do--as Reagan did--that one knows how to run a smaller, smarter, better government. One must strangle government.
2) Except when it comes to "appropriate" social norms: A few months ago, Governor Mitch Daniels proposed a "truce" on social issues so that leaders could concentrate on fiscal responsibility. The howls of outrage across Republican circles were so loud that Daniels quickly signed into law legislation that revoked state Medicare contracts with Planned Parenthood, thus relieving thousands of poor women of their primary health care provider. No matter. Planned Parenthood also provides abortion services. So much for the truce. In fact, the new Republican House majority has spent an inordinate amount of time on such issues since January. None of the "frontrunners" can be characterized as a cultural warrior. In fact, Pawlenty cannot be characterized as a warrior of any sort.
3) And also the policing of our borders and the distrust of aliens, both those willing to stay home and those trying to come here and those inhabiting the greater Milky Way: In all seriousness, the Republican base has become increasingly insular or, to borrow a term from Walter Russell Mead, increasingly Jacksonian. They don't want to think much about foreign nations, they don't much trust them, they don't much want to trade with them (a fault line between the Tea Party base and the elites), and will only stomp them flat when US interests are directly and clearly threatened. I suspect, but cannot prove (although my own Congressman is a good example), that a sort of Buchananite disgust with those beyond our borders is the result of Bush II's administration. The US has spent better than a decade giving the lives of our boys and those people still can't get their act together, or so goes the argument. To hell with them.
So, is this the whole of the Republican party? No. There is a huge chunk, perhaps even a small majority, who would not sign onto any of these statements and more yet who would not endorse one or another. But this is by far the most active, the most alive segment of the party, just as the McGovern Left was the most energized part of the Democratic Party in 1972. They'll want a candidate. There is an opening for a candidate who can clearly articulate these premises, who doesn't look or act like the three white guys, who hasn't been tainted with the messy fact of public administration, who can live off the land, off the church network, off internet fundraising, and who draws media attention like moths to a flame, thus multiplying the oomph of scarce campaign dollars. Hello, Representative Bachmann.
Comments