While it is still possible that none of the current Republican presidential candidates will earn enough delegates to claim the nomination, it’s becoming clear that the nomination of any of the current field of candidates will cause huge fissions in the Republican coalition. One piece of evidence for this comes from George Will. He uses today’s column to eviscerate Newt Gingrich in the harshest tones, and to compare Mitt Romney to Tom Dewey (who lost to Harry Truman in 1948). Mr. Will advises against nominating either of the two front-runners. Instead, he makes a quarter-hearted pitch for Rick Perry:
Rick Perry (disclosure: my wife, Mari Will, advises him) has been disappointing in debates. They test nothing pertinent to presidential duties but have become absurdly important. Perry’s political assets remain his Texas record and Southwestern zest for disliking Washington and Wall Street simultaneously and equally.
That’s literally all Mr. Will can muster in Perry’s favor. I get the feeling he only mentioned him to keep a degree of harmony in his household. His real pitch is for Jon Huntsman, who he assures us is the most conservative of all the candidates.
I am sure that Mr. Will will find a way to adapt and get onboard if either Romney or Gingrich becomes the nominee. But he won’t do it happily. Romney is too much of a flip-flopper with too much baggage as a moderate. Gingrich has made too many enemies and is too erratic. Rick Perry can’t even present a defensible argument that he’s prepared. Michele Bachmann is too extreme. Ron Paul’s foreign policy is totally indigestible. And Rick Santorum is a cartoon. That leaves Hunstman, who not only served in the evil Obama administration but has been dismissive of the anti-science base of the GOP.
None of these candidates can unite the Republican Party. In fact, all of them will divide it in more or less devastating ways. Just imagine how two different communities would react to potential nominees.
How would Delaware County Republicans, in the Philly suburbs, react to the nomination of a dumber version of George W. Bush, or an egomaniacal Georgian huckster, or a starry-eyed rural Minnesotan wing-nut who espouses ludicrous conspiracy theories? How would they respond to Ron Paul’s pro-life isolationist libertarianism? The truth is, suburban Philly Republicans would bolt.
On the other hand, how would a Southern Baptist megachurch community in North Carolina react to Mitt Romney or Jon Huntsman? I think they’d be somewhat less than enthusiastic. Romney comes off as insincere and opportunistic. Huntsman comes off as dismissive and disparaging. And they both come from a church that openly competes for converts with evangelicals.
Still, Romney and Huntsman would have an easier time getting the GOP base to close ranks than any of these other candidates. They might not be ideal, but they won’t make too many people embarrassed to admit that they’re a Republican. You can’t say that about Bachmann or Gingrich or Perry. And Ron Paul? He’d split the Republican Party so badly they might just go the way of the Whigs.
I like your use of the word “cartoon”, which applies pretty much to all of these people.
WHYY’s radio times had some dudes on the other day to talk about the GOP candidates. Caller after caller, many self-identified conservatives, said they were embarrassed by the whole thing, that none of these people are acceptable, that they can’t believe this is what’s happened to “their” party.
I’m still praying for Mitt Headroom.
fl-fl-fl-fl-flip-flop
To my consternation, I find myself largely in agreement with George Will. Mostly I’m grateful I’m a Democrat and don’t have to make these kinds of decisions. But when I wash myself which of the Republican nominees would I pick if I had to, and if I wasn’t allowed to choose Romney or Huntsman, I supposed I’d pick Perry as the least of other evils.
And I find it disturbing that Huntsman is unacceptable to the Republican base. Sure, I understand you want someone who reflects your values and beliefs; I’d never vote for Lieberman in a Democratic primary. But saying a few sensible things about science and admitting the Obama isn’t the anti-Christ and even being willing to work with him now makes you anathema in the Republican primaries? Seriously? The guy wants to kill the capital gains tax. Sure he admits that climate change is real, but that doesn’t want to do anything about it. And yet they’ll consider Bachman, Perry, Cain, and Newt before they’ll consider him. It’s scary how extreme the Republican party has become.
Let’s say it’s early 2003, and a Democrat confesses that he believes that the coming adventure in Iraq may not be such a bad thing and that s/he’s willing to work with Bush who isn’t the worst thing to ever happen to America. How would the party base have received such a Democrat? He probably would have found himself in a “three-way tie for third” in Iowa come 2004…
“believes that the coming adventure in Iraq may not be such a bad thing” would be a fair comparison if Perry had said it might not be a bad thing to do something about climate change. Correct if I’m wrong, but I haven’t seen evidence of that; he’s just said he accepts the scientific consensus. So unless I’m mistaken, a better comparison would be, “believed that Saddam Hussein really did have weapons of mass destruction he was hiding.”
And we’d also have to imagine this hypothetical Democrat was running against a front runner who used to be extremely right wing, but had changed his position on just about every issue while denying he’d done so, and a selection of candidates that were an embarrassment. In that instance, yes, I’d vote for this hypothetical fellow.
He’s intelligent. That would be too much radical change for a party that’s shunned intellect in its nominee since at least Nixon. And he worked for the Evil Empire of Demorats. And he speaks Chinese and knows what country it’s spoken in.
I realize Newt keeps being hyped as “brilliant”, but c’mon. We all know better.
You keep going with this competition for converts meme but it is wildly off the mark. Southern Baptists don’t view Mormons as rivals for scarce resources; Southern Baptists view Mormons as more or less enemies of God.
Big, irreconcilable difference…
Can’t it be that we’re both right?
link
It’s fairly well-known (at least in seminary circles) that many theological (as opposed to sociological) cult members are former Baptists – despite an emphasis on Sunday School, most Baptists have no idea what they actually believe so they’re easily swayed by a persuasive presentation from pretty much anyone else with a similarly conservative epistemology. What was new in this instance was the particular inroads that the Mormons were making. Thing is, that matters to the head honchos at the SBC – the people in the pews don’t think like that. The people in the pews see Mormons as Teh Enemy, and that isn’t something that Romney or Huntsman will be able to bridge. I still think that will be the GOP ticket, but it will seriously alienate the Southerners.
From what I can see the Mormons have an extremely effective brainwashing technique in the 2 year missionary tour. Spend two years trying to convert others to Mormonism and you are thoroughly converted yourself. It is similar to the fact that you can learn any subject better by teaching it to others than just by being taught.
This makes Mormonism a real threat to the top leadership of the SBC. The SBC has an evangelical program but nothing with the individual power to brainwash those doing the evangelism. The SBC is a principle institution for keeping the political population of the American South in line and has been since the generation before the Civil War.
Mormons don’t have to keep the population in line for the political leadership. Mormons merely have to pick off the vulnerable Baptists. The SBC has to keep the population in line to keep the money and power flowing from the politicians. It was a key aspect of the social control that permitted slavery to exist, and after the Civil War it was key to repressing the so-called “free” Blacks. Since Mormons are not beholden to the political leaders in the South, they are a real threat to the still existing ideological sociological controls that keep people like Jim DeMint being reelected. It’s also important here in Texas. That’s a significant reason why the Libertarian Texas oil Millionaires supported both the John Birch Society and the religious right since the 1950’s.
This is what I have seen in Texas. I grew up here in the late 40’s and 50’s as an Anglican anti-segregationist Democrat, so I was and remain an outside observer. I’m still working to understand what I have observed, but this is my current interpretation. For many years I simply detested evangelicals, but now I am beginning to understand the kinds of brainwashing that they undergo.
For them (either SBC or Mormon) to accept the irrationality of what they evangelize they have to have strong defenses against rationality, and their defenses are to try to covert their enemies. Instead of questioning their own beliefs they focus outwards to convert someone else. This absorbs all their energy while leaving their personal beliefs protected from internal questioning. Then any conversions they feel they have achieved reinforces their personal (irrational) beliefs. Even a small percentage of conversions totally confirms their beliefs that they are the select who share THE TRUTH.
The SBC is an inherent part of the social elites (with responsibility for keeping the plebeians in line) while the Mormons are outsiders attacking the members of the SBC because their SBC mental state makes them vulnerable to evangelicalism. The Mormons, as a constant minority in most places, have developed a more effective individual-level social brainwashing technique with their two-year evangelical missions.
The SBC is a core institutional element of the American segregationist South. It justifies the stratification of society by race, income and religion. Mormonism threatens the SBC and its position in the upper social stratification of Southern society. The elites of the SBC are going to hate Mormonism and they will transmit their emotions to their religious flocks.
I really, really do not count on any non-aggression pact between the SBC and Mormons.
This is personal opinion and not significantly based on any explanatory history or sociology that I have found on the subjects involved. I think it does comport with the facts. As an Anglican minority living in Texas I detest evangelicals of all stripes. Their very effort to manipulate me by conversion guarantees that I will detest and reject them. But this is my current effort to justify that rejection and to explain why the SBC will not accept the Mormons – Huntsman or Romney.
I just want to say that, after being increasingly amused at the prospect that Gingrich might edge out Romney, I am now getting worried that Huntsman might overtake them both.
Last poll I showed saw Huntsman on the rise in New Hampshire. It’s quite plausible that he could finish in third, which would result in a lot more press attention. And I’m no longer sure that the GOP primary voters will find his reasonable demeanor and ambassadorship disqualifying.
It would say good things about the GOP if Huntsman could get nominated. But I am positive he would be a much tougher general election candidate than either Gingrich or Romney.
You might be right. But we will never know, because Huntsman is not a racist lunatic wack, and that means he will not be nominated by the party of racist lunatic wacks.
You are correct.
And aside from everything else, he’s also a Mormon.
The fissures aren’t being caused by the candidates. The candidates represent the fissures that are tearing the Republican Party apart.
No significant Republican candidate was willing to put himself forward so far. Why else did Jeb Bush and Chris Christi back out of the nomination? The best candidate the Republicans had was Romney and most of the Party rejects him. Pawlenty and Huntsman were the next possibilities and both died before any serious consideration.
Don’t you get it? The Republican Party has given up winning the Presidency in 2012 before it started. There is no reasonable Republican candidate for President! There is no one the party can decide to support!
After the utterly failed Bush/Cheney administration and after the 2010 Tea Party the national Republican Party cannot agree on a candidate that pulls it together. There is no unified national Republican Party now!
Excellent points. But the GOP does have lots and lots of money. They’re all dressed up and no place to go. They also have a total lack of scruples.
I accidentally posted this on an old thread, but here’s the first sign that the GOP might do the smart thing and turn to Huntsman: http://2012.talkingpointsmemo.com/2011/12/conservatives-starting-to-catch-on-that-jon-huntsman-is-a-
conservative.php?ref=fpa
“Rick Perry (disclosure: my wife, Mari Will, advises him) has been disappointing in debates.” Not like 1980, when I coached the Gipper without telling anyone and then went on the TV and said how great he did. Oh, and did I mention that Jimmy Carter’s briefing book was stolen?
OT:
Even Rand Paul understands the dangers of the National Defense Authorization Act.
S. 1867 The End Of America
The big mystery about Rand Paul is trying to work out if he’s just a big-business/culture freak shill or an idiot with actual principles.
When he does something as useful as this, it doesn’t matter why he did it but that he did it.
Now we wait to see whether the President will veto it for reasons beyond preservation of Presidential power (the compromise to get it through the Senate addressed that issue but punted the Constitutional issue with a “Congressional intent” clause).
You state that as though being a principled Libertarian counts favorably. It does not. It is a form of psychosis. It is also a form of psychosis that the elites of big businesses have learned to encourage.
I don’t count Libertarianism as favorable under any circumstances. But I reserve a certain amount of respect for honest principles, no matter how misguided. At the very least, you can say honest people are doing the best they know how to do; a principled Libertarian, in that view, is someone who might learn better one day.
If you’re just shilling for the money, though, it doesn’t matter what you believe. As long as you get paid, you’ll toe the line.
It looks more and more like none of this current ship of fools will be the nominee, unless the GOP power establishment steamrollers Huntsman to the front of the line.
Otherwise I’m expecting they’ll use a brokered convention to force Jeb Bush, Christie, or even Pawlenti into the slot. The official nominees are either obvious losers or don’t fit the role of corporate spokespuppet.
If neither Romney nor one of the others (Gingrich? Huntsman?) can control the nomination then the Republican convention will be an open convention with the candidate chosen in smoke-filled rooms.
This is already beginning to look possible. When was the last one? Republicans in 1952? (I was age 9. I didn’t notice. I did ask Dad why Truman wasn’t running ad the Democratic nominee, though.)
I think we still have to assume that the eventual nominee will be Romney. Then the question becomes how to bring the crazies wing of the GOP in from the cold. That is, who will Romney choose for a running mate? Perry or Bachmann? One can bring the Good Old Boys, the other the wingnuts. Gingrich? Who can he bring besides himself?
Romney/Huckabee? Could be interesting.
That’s a very good comparison because you are essentially comparing suburbanites with suburbanites. I think by and large you are right about this. There are not a lot of Southern Baptist megachurches, but there is one in Cary and most of the traditional downtown Southern Baptist churches, such as First Baptist-Charlotte are megachurches. But there is a larger group of megachurches that are independent or associated with various pentecostal denominations. Those tend to be populated by folks who have risen into the middle class in the last generation, have hardnosed entrepreneurial pastors and a political intensity that Southern Baptists mostly lack. These are the folks likely to picket what few abortion clinics are left. They are folks that Rep. Sue Myrick appeals to.
There might be a few rich, Chamber of Commerce, Southern Baptists who would support Romney (and less likely Huntsman) but there will be no pentecostals who do. No matter how rich and connected they have become.
Booman is completely accurate about Delco republicans.
And the Philly suburb vote seems to accurately reflect how the overall PA vote lines up. You can just about count lawn-signs in the ‘burbs and predict statewide elections.
and unite the GOP for the most part. Conservatives hate Obama as much as Democrats hated Bush.
The fight will be over the independents, and whether the young will vote. If the economy does recover, there is a landslide in the offing. If it doesn’t, there may be the opposite ahead.
If the economy muddles through it will be plus or minus 5.
I think you are generally correct about the religious aspects. The question is going to be gotv. How many religious voters simply will not bother to vote in 2012? Will SBC voters vote for a Moron over Black Democrats or will they simply sit at home and not vote?
Other than that it is going to depend on who the voters blame the poor economy on. Can the Obama team blame the problems on Bush/Cheney and on the Republican Congress? That seems to be the direction the White House is going, and I suspect that it will work at a 1948 level.
But that’s my opinion tonight. I could change my mind tomorrow.
I didn’t look at the title of the comment above, and I disagree with it. I seriously doubt Gingrich can win anything. He is another short-term space-filler representing the anyone-but-Romney Republican element. There is just too much time left between now and the Republican convention next August for Gingrich to survive as a viable candidate.
My god, look who the Republicans nominated in 2010 for governor in any number of 15 states.
Gingrich is more plausable than any number of them.
Why do you think conservatives will reject Gingrich?
Gingrich has historically had an astonishing capacity for self-destruction. I expect that to continue. He is also disorganized personally and has no political organization that will carry him through the primary season. He hasn’t the ability to set up such an organization and he historically has not worked well with the kinds of people who can set up such an organization. Remember when his staff quit? That was not a one time event. That was the easily anticipated result of Gingrich’s nature. He is a short-term flash in the pan with little indication that he can go the distance.
I also think that the powers-that-be in the Republican Party will reject him. He is not trustworthy or reliable and that is a really big element that people investing lots of money and time in a prospective President look for.
Those factors will be less important if the Republican Party decides the Presidency is unwinnable by a Republican. If the unemployment rate remains high, then the Republicans are not going to give up the possibility of winning the White House. As long as the possibility of winning remains I really doubt that Gingrich will get the nomination.
Anyway that’s my best guess right now.
Let the word go forth, from this time and place, that they will bear any burden, pay any price, support any friend, oppose any foe, to guarantee the removal of that awful Negro from the White House.
Come next November it just won’t matter. This is not just another election. These people are standing at Armageddon and fighting for the Lord.