I’m glad Romney won. The polls and pundits got it wrong again because they ignored something fundamental about his campaign: he is the only traditional Republican in the race. Plus, he looks and speaks well, has consistently figured out how to win, and generally appears presidential, unlike the sickly McCain, the monomaniacal Giuliani, and the somewhat uncouth Huckabee.
I think Romney’s the best candidate at this point. McCain every day reminds me of why I’ve always had reservations about him: the combination of his preening moral superiority and his hostility to social conservatives. If he won, it would be bad, but the fluke could be explained and its impact minimized by pinning a victory on his impressive biography.
Similarly, but worse, Huckabee and Giuliani both represent toxic wings of the Republican Party. Giuliani is from the wing that jettisons the social conservatives, who alone have the numbers to guarantee electoral victory. More important, social conservatives act as a moral counterweight to the “tough love” positions Republicans are known for. Giuliani wants to wish them and the chaos of the last 40 years away.
Huckabee has the opposite problem; he has no respect for business, wealth, ethical rules, higher education, limited government, or the long record of pro-business policies in the party. Plus, his foreign policy views, like Bush’s, are fanatical and ill-informed. McCain, of course, only has the defense issues on his side; on social issues like immigration and on business issues like taxes, he enjoys nothing more than making mainstream Republicans wince. It’s an unorthodox lineup with many variations of Republicans represented.
Romney alone, I believe, is saying the right things, has an impressive record, and can unite the three main constituencies of the Republican Party: social conservatives, defense hawks, and pro-business interests. I believe, for this reason alone, he’ll eke out a victory in the primaries. He’ll be a formidable presence against either Hillary or Obama. Obama’s lofty rhetoric will be cut to shreds by Romney’s command of facts and figures. Hillary, on the other hand, will appear callous, dull, and worn out next to the vigorous Boy Scout from Massachusetts.
Subscribe To This Feed
I’m having second thoughts on Huckabee. He seems to be making progress on immigration. Rush Limbaugh is claiming that Huckabee will destroy the GOP if he wins the nomination. In the long run, would that be such a bad thing?
The pro-business interests who dominate the GOP have been the driving force behind “comprehensive immigration reform” and “free trade” globalization. They are more opposed to Huckabee than Hillary or Obama (without evangelical voters, they lose their grip on power). Romney is their backup candidate to Giuliani.
If Romney wins the nomination, we get more of the status quo – the “conservative coalition” reunites, “social conservatives” return to the back of the bus. Although Romney sounds tougher on immigration than Huckabee, this could always change after he gets elected. Reagan, Bush Sr. and W. all worked to loosen our immigration laws. Would Romney be any different?
Romney strikes me as a fiscal conservative from a New England state. He will probably turn out to be another Bush Sr. in office. I don’t think Huckabee has a realistic chance in the general election, but it would be interesting to see how the pro-business wing would react if he won the nomination. Would they back an evangelical candidate who prioritized social issues over their economic interests? Would they throw their support behind Hillary or Obama to stop Huckabee?
Ideal scenario: a realignment of American politics. The pro-business wing of the GOP, racial minorities, and social liberals make common cause. Social conservatives, Northern working class voters, and racialized whites coalesce in a new coalition resembling the old Democratic Party.
I’m ambivalent about all of the candidates, but I think something is very off about Huckabee; I wrote about his “suburban populism” in another entry. Romney seems the most likely not to have this election totally destroy or discredit conservatism.
For the future, though, we can’t just take Reaganism off the shelf, somehow get it accepted by the big GOP functionaries, and then run that and expect to win. The country is changing. The small government coalition is dead. There are one or two more election cycles that can prevent us from becoming a 500mm person country in 50 years with a majority from third world immigrants and their progeny, but not too much more time than that.
In ’92, Perot lost not least because he wasn’t really a conservative, he was weird and paranoid, he was not with a major political party, he was too into populist campaign finance and direct democracy measures, and he was generally
incoherent.
We need a Pat Buchanan, but without the scary baggage. Someone who can smile and charm and focus on issues that have wedge appeal–China, immigration, terrorism, lost jobs to globalization–without making too much hay of our moral rot, which is manifest and a real problem, but not one on which there is sufficient consensus to make it a big national political issue.
A move by Republicans in a nationalist, security-oriented direction that emphasized preserving America’s cultural integrity, security, borders, and economic security seems conservative to me, or at least
maintains a lot of the traditional conservative values. Romney will do less to upset this move than the Huckabee or Giuliani wings of the party. Huckabee in particular would represent a false radicalism that backed down after a few cosmetic anti-gay and anti-abortion measures were advanced.
Conservatives pre-Reagan used to be more ambivalent about globalism and free markets. Bill Rusher of National Review
recounts a debate with Robert Samuleson in the 1970s where Rusher made an anti-free-trade point based on the problem of structural unemployment and the negative impact on the American worker. There’s no reason we can’t have some economic populism that is based on the principles of national sovereignty and national security.
Bush has done untold damage to our coalition. But something realistic
must be done to salvage what can be salvaged. If we recognize we’re a
distinct national community that can preserve itself and its basic way
of life and the contours of that way of life, that’s a great start.
Who is the constituency for this: security moms, blue collar people,
some blacks, ethnic whites, traditional conservatives, etc. It’s
true, we may lose the CEO vote, but there aren’t that many of them.
Conservatives need to move the party from being a vehicle for the
business class–prescription drug giveaways, farm subsidies,
immigration subsidies–into being a protector of the American way of
life and the American working family. Huckabee’s measures are ill advised and won’t succeed in this regard; we need someone like him, but not as dumb and not as wishy washy on security and immigration and the like. Romney’s old school, but I believe the next winning and succesful candidate will be an amalgamation of the Romney and Huckabee concepts.
It isn’t the CEO vote that drives the Republican Party – it’s the CEO money!. Money is the mother’s milk of politics, as one of our California politicos once observed. The money is increasingly in the hands of those whose interests are opposed to the intersests of most of the American people. If you think Mr.CEO Romney is going to side with the American people against his corporate buddies – well, there’s a bridge for sale somewhere for you!
As someone independently wealthy, he’s better positioned to do so than someone out trolling for votes, like the failed businessman Bush.
So Romney won one, fine. It’s good that each Republican candidate is getting the experience of coming in Second; because that’s where they will be in November. Sorry, it’s a Dem year no matter whom we run (barring the unforseen).
Off-topic slightly, but what’s the thinking on whether Hillary, as the nominee, would have Obama as her running mate? If, God forbid, Hillary became President, it’s hard to picture her going for two terms. As VP, the Coffee-Coloured-One would be the heir apparent.
I think they hate each other too much and he wouldn’t want to be saddled with what would be her inevitable screw ups as Pres.
How Can any conservative vote for Romney?
He was listed as one of the top ten Republicans in Name Only by Human Events Magazine.
http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=11129
What will he be after the primary?
And would he be another George Bush if he gets elected?
Um, what about Thompson? Seems like the only true conservative in the race without the history of the giant flip-flops that Romney has done.
Is he running for President? Mr. Thompson, that is.
Ouch–right to the quick, that one went.
I understand your idea that Romney looks and acts presidential. I have a gut-instinct that says he is a loser– that Hillary or Obama will beat him because he isn’t dynamic enough. I am primarily concerned with lowering taxes and improving the economy. I think Guiliani, McCain, Thompson and Romney will all succeed in doing this. I think Huckabee is a disaster. I think only McCain is electable of the bunch. He can honestly put himself out as a “uniter”– which I frankly think is the only way to win the votes of “undecideds”… as far as his lagging health, hell, his mother is 90, and looked pretty good on stage in SC. I’m with McCain. If he dies in office, so be it, but I trust his VP will be better than Hillary or Obama.