No Finish Line at the Horserace
The conventional wisdom about the GOP is that it is a coalition of three indistinct bases: social conservatives, business interests, and small-government types. Generally, these groups have gotten along quite well, due to three things. First, they aren’t necessarily hostile toward one another’s interests. Second, there’s been little competition for political priorities. Third, they often had some glue, like anti-Communism, to hold them together. This primary season is remarkable, as was the 2006 elections, because it looks like those elements no longer hold true. As we’ve heard for over a year, the coalition is cracking up. No single candidate can rise above the objections of one or more bases. It truly is, as Ross Douthat put it, “A Race Nobody Can Win,” even though, “you could argue that almost all the GOP candidates (including Huckabee) have more impressive resumes than the three leading Democrats . . . ” And so when democracy works its magic in November, we’ll likely end up with one of those Democrats.
It bears examining the fatal flaw in each candidate individually, because it reveals that not all of the GOP’s problems stem from a fractured base. (I’ve thrown in my own dealbreakers as well, if only to highlight my distance from the base.)
| Candidate | Dealbreaker for the Base | Dealbreaker for Me |
| Giuliani | Social liberalism | Exceptional warmongery, megalomania |
| Romney | Known flipper, suspected flopper; Heresy | Disingenuity, exceptional pandering |
| Huckabee | Socialism | Exceptional populism |
| McCain | Insufficiently anti-immigrant | Insufficiently pro-Constitution |
| Thompson | Won’t even put a deal on the table | Emptiness |
| Paul | Pacifism | Um . . . |
A full list of objections to each candidate would be much longer, but I believe this captures the most salient ones. It would be too much to ask for a perfect candidate, but it is remarkable that all of these are intolerable. Even this late, some pundits are wondering who else could have run and done better; I’ve yet to hear a good answer. Taken together, we see a party unable to unite behind a coherent agenda or produce electable candidates.
. . . So about Paul. I’ve stated before that I can hold my nose when looking at his policies because he is the only candidate whose principles align with mine. More practically, Bryan Caplan argues that, if he ever took office, we’d see a modest net gain for small government, as he’d be unable to implement his more troublesome prescriptions. But Paul will not be president. My support for Paul is a protest, which seems to be the respectable view — despite Megan McArdle’s objection, which seems to preclude any such thing as a protest vote.
9 Responses to “No Finish Line at the Horserace”
I LOL’d at “Heresy” being a dealbreaker for Romney. It’s funny because it’s true.
Paul may be perceived as a pacifist, but he’s not. He served in the military, he supports strong national defense, he endorsed the war in Afghanistan, and he supports various use-of-force measures (such as letters of marque – although I personally feel special ops teams would be a better alternative) to deal with terrorists internationally.
Zach,
I think that the experience of the Bush presidency is probably what is causing the hang-up. Personally, I felt that Bush was merely tolerable in 2000, and I thought he shortcomings wouldn’t be important.
It turns out that his shortcomings defined his Presidency. Thus, now the GOP is looking at their candidates through the same lens, and they don’t like what they see.
Also, I think that potential candidates that are more tolerable are not running, because they know 2008 isn’t going to swing their way. We are watching the perennial candidates and crazy upstarts battle for the nomination, rather than serious candidates.
Belonging to a religion that rejects the doctrine of the Trinity and not having the guts to describe that religion in such plain terms definitely makes some people leery of Romney.
McCain’s other HUGE dealbreaker is the “Gang of 14″ appeasement of the Democrats.
Funny, I thought McCain dealbreaker for the base was “insufficiently pro-torture.”
hmmm…. reading around blogs this morning, it seems the GOP establishment is really fearing a McCain surge in NH and elsewhere. See, for example, Patrick Ruffini’s latest. So who does the establishment rally around? Romney or Rudy?
DMD,
What GOP establishment? Who represents them? I certainly don’t support Rudy or Romney (for Zach’s reasons). McCain is tolerable to me, mainly because he has the balls to stand up to policy makers under him, which seems to be Bush’s error. I only speak for myself, as someone who has been associated with GOP in the past.
The party GOP has been torn apart through arrogance and stupidity.
The only advantage the GOP has in this election is that whoever gets the nomination is going to have to be the “anti-Hilary”. Unfortunately, they will have the disadvantage of being a white male. I think McCain has the fortitude to overcome that, but I don’t think he will make the nomination.
Huckabee’s candidacy isn’t base-breaking? I’m hearing that the Wall Street wing of the party is practically apoplectic over it…
Hillary getting the nomination will unify the Republican base better than anything any of the GOP candidates could do. I have to keep reminding myself that her winning the nomination is the best outcome of the Dem primary (both for being a more moderate Dem candidate and for increasing the GOP candidate’s chance at winning), even though emotionally I am much less repelled by Obama.