The coverage of the GOP nomination fight so far has been drenched in soggy clichés confidently stating that the Republican electorate will eventually settle for Mitt Romney after flirting with a raft of other potential suitors. The coverage has mainly focused on how other candidates have exploited the weaknesses of front runner Romney, contrasting his apparent moderation with their own bona fide conservatism. This hesitance to accept Romney has led to the party spreading the electorate wealth, with three separate candidates winning the first three primaries.
Looking beyond the relative appeals of the candidates there is a structural reason for the variety of winners. In the 1980s Ronald Reagan created the coalition of social, fiscal and defence conservatives that have been the backbone of Republican electoral success since the 1980s. Until recently the GOP has treated these three positions as orthodoxy. The 2008 election was the first real sign of disunity within the coalition, with the social conservatives in particular being especially unhappy with the nomination of John McCain.
Social conservatives maintain strong doubts about Mitt Romney, finding his Mormonism unpalatable and his former moderation on social views unacceptable. Thirty years after the election of Ronald Regan social conservatives have not yet seen their most keenly held ambitions fulfilled. There has been no roll back on the legalisation of abortion or the ban on school prayer. Congress repealed 'Don't Ask Don't Tell' over the protests of social conservatives with the support of several Republican Senators. As a result they have been the most stubborn holdouts to Romney, instead favouring candidates who they consider will be more aggressive in the promotion of social conservatism.
Rick Santorum has sought to capitalise on the frustration of social conservatives as the central theme of his campaign. This frustration among social conservatives has contributed to the truncation of Romney's lead in the polls. Santorum's victory in Iowa damaged Romney's hue of inevitability and opened the door for Newt Gingrich who confounded both rational expectation and expert opinion to carry South Carolina on the back of strong debate performances.
Defence and foreign policy hawks have been given pause for thought by the rise of Ron Paul and his brand of isolationism. The more hawkish elements of the party have long been in the ascendency, but the 2010 Midterm elections saw isolationist tendencies once more appear within the Republican electorate. While Ron Paul is the only candidate who embraces a drastically insular foreign policy, he wouldn't have killed Osama Bin Laden nor would he take military action against a nuclear armed Iran, a section of the Republican electorate has clearly more become more receptive to the central isolationist tenant of his campaign. The appeal of Paul has had an effect on the race with both Michelle Bachmann and Newt Gingrich attacking President Obama's decision to use force in support of the Libyan rebels. Only Mitt Romney has given his full throated endorsement to the traditional platform of defence conservatives, backing an open ended presence in Afghanistan in the same manner McCain did.
Only on Iran, again with the exception of Paul, is there consensus on stopping the Islamic Republic developing a nuclear device. However the Republican position on Iran is ersatz foreign policy. It features so highly on the agenda because of its appeal to a slice of domestic evangelical Christians and orthodox Jews who see Israel as under imminent mortal threat from Iran. The most fervent advocate of military action against Iran is Santorum who draws support heavily from the evangelical movement. That most Republican candidates have endorsed the possibility of action against Iran is more to do with the domestic appeal of this policy to these two groups than the electoral appeal of neo-conservatism.
The attacks from Gingrich and Santorum on Romney's record at Bain Capital are unorthodox within a Republican primary. The party has constantly referred to itself as the champion of free trade and business enterprise and Republican rhetoric praises those who create jobs and wealth. Romney himself promises to designate China as a currency manipulator and to put in place tariffs to balance against this if elected President. Protectionist sentiment concerning China's impact has usually been from the Democrats who traditionally draw support from the northern industrial states which have been squeezed by low cost of Chinese manufacturing. Perhaps this is a reflection that the issue of growing income inequality has percolated into the Republican race for the first time. While the GOP can hardly be accused of abandoning capitalism, it is interesting to see that candidates for the party's nomination can win support through attacks on 'predatory capitalists', language which used to largely be confined to the Democrats.
The attacks on Romney's record at Bain Capital in are all part of the bluster and thunder of an election race. However the attacks on the inequities of US capitalism are sticking to Romney, and Obama, from the State of the Union, will seek to press home this message in the general election. It is an interesting historical quirk that it is the Republicans who have helped manoeuvre the topic of income inequality into the centre of a general election. There is clearly an audience even within the Republican Party which is receptive to arguments on this subject.
The ideas and beliefs on which political parties profess to fight elections has over time shifted and sometimes swerved. It is not always clear if the debates and arguments seen in this primary fight are signs of any great shift in Republican thinking. However the race so far has shown that there is a space within the Republican Party for the questioning of traditional orthodoxy, particularly on foreign and fiscal affairs. Romney's primary record so far has judged him poorly on his ability to be the consensus candidate accepted by all three groups. However this primary race has revealed that parts of the conservative orthodoxy have been challenged by groups within the GOP. Romney is trying to become the consensus candidate at the moment when that consensus is beginning to change.
No comments:
Post a Comment