Everything in moderation, including moderation

Thus spoke Oscar Wilde

Moderation, a trait which a substantive and vocal part of the Republican electorate now openly states, is more honoured in the breach than in the observance. This logic places Romney, Huntsman, Pawlenty and Daniels at a severe disadvantage at winning the nomination and really challenging Obama in the 2012 election.

All four have been governors and have differing elements of crossover appeal to the wider electorate. However this experience of governance coupled with the potential to appeal to centrist voters has not warmed any of these men to the base. While all adhere to the core principles of modern conservatism, each according to the base, has dabbled with some unspeakable heresy which rules them unfit to be the party's nominee for President. Romney enacted health care reform in Massachusetts which seems uncomfortably similar to Obama's plan. Huntsman has tacked away from the social conservatives on the issue of gay rights as well has serving the administration as ambassador to China. Pawlenty once advocated cap and trade and Daniels has suggested steering clear of social issues until after the economy is fixed.

The Tea Party, though often amorphous and contradictory, is setting the contours of the debate within the party. It shows no signs of moderating its idealogical commitments in the face of and electorate which in 2012 who will be younger, less white and right wing than 2010 electorate which swept so many of their candidates into office. As a result the otherwise more moderate candidates are having to recast their own records and views in order to appeal a base which is increasingly conservative.

Romney's experience within the party shows the danger of doing this. He quickly embraced the social conservative default on both abortion and gay marriage, while simultaneously stating that his Massachusetts health care proposal was fine at the state level but the almost identical version of it rolled out by Obama was unconstitutional and financially reckless. As the result Romney has managed to recast himself not as the man of all seasons but as the man with two faces. A once plausible candidate with a strong economic record is distrusted by the socially conservative base who rightly notice that he is an inauthentic messenger for their deeply held beliefs while independents and moderates have been put off by his lurch to the right. Ultimately Romney will suffer from his win-at-all costs strategy in 2008 where he overreached in selling himself to conservative voters at the expense of broader national appeal. That or they pull out all together as Daniels did, either not wishing to engage in such intellectual gymnastics or perhaps guessing that he as a moderate would be better served running in 2016.

With the unemployment numbers as they are and the entire national debate being consumed by economic issues it is astonishing that candidates with high profile business and management experience have either decided or been forced by the intellectual climate in their party to focus on their adherence to idealogical sacred cows over social issues, climate change and the debt ceiling. It's interesting that Daniels, one of the stronger candidates, has withdrawn entirely perhaps to save himself for 2016 not wishing to taint his “brand” with the concessions he'd have to make in order to win the 2012 election.

Democracy is fundamentally about competition. The Tea Party's adherence to idealogical commitments above all else will undermine this competition if they are allowed to set the the tone of the debate within the Republican party. The Republicans cannot hope to recapture centrist voters when part of their base sees Mitt Romney's ability to speak French as elitist and out of touch with what they call the “Real America”.