« Selling the New Nixon: Roving Pavlov Ailes The Nation
Nancy Reagan Disputes Gingrich’s Quote Context on Ronald Reagan Passing “Torch” To Him »
What the Republican Primaries of 2012 Are Telling Us
One tie, one win, one loss… and now, on the eve of the Florida primary, Willard Mitt Romney appears to be coasting toward his party’s nomination. At least that’s what the professional soothsayers are telling us, and I won’t dispute their wisdom even though the actual nominating convention is still seven long months away.
With Newt Gingrich fading fast, nobody in the current G.O.P. field seems poised to deal the recently reinvigorated Romney a death-blow. It’s unlikely that he’ll crack under the strain of campaigning or abscond to the Bahamas with a Venezuelan mistress. He won’t run out of cash, either.
Barring a Tea Party insurrection at the Republican convention in Tampa this August, the Mittster will walk away as the G.O.P. presidential nominee. He’ll earn the right to joust with President Obama and knock him off his horse, though nobody is really excited about his candidacy.
So how does such a plain vanilla contender emerge as the standard-bearer for the party of Lincoln, Teddy Roosevelt and George W. Bush? The same way that such tepid warriors as John McCain, John Kerry, Michael Dukakis and Walter Mondale won their respective nominations: the quirkier candidates self-destructed (remember Howard Dean’s primal yell?), and the bland survivors diligently collected the most delegate votes during the primaries.
Sometimes I wonder if we shouldn’t return to the days when a convention was more than a coronation… when sweaty delegates bickered behind closed doors in the sweltering summer heat, tempers flaring in a heavy haze of cigar smoke. At least there was a little suspense, and we never knew if the delegates would pick a Franklin D. Roosevelt or a John W. Davis.
But since 1972, when primaries became binding (as opposed to mere “beauty contests” to test a candidate’s viability), we’ve gone the democratic route in selecting party nominees. It seems fitting and proper, and yet…
For me at least, the 2012 G.O.P. primary season has exposed some glaring flaws in the system. But I’ve seen one or two bright spots, too. What have these contests been telling us?
1. It pays to have money. BIG money. Romney is a self-made mogul, of course, and Gingrich is loaded, too — though not to the same order of magnitude as the former head of Bain Capital. But Gingrich’s friend and supporter, billionaire casino tycoon and ardent Zionist Sheldon Adelson, is even more loaded than Romney. Both Romney and Gingrich also benefit from superfunded Super PACs — those cleverly conceived “independent” political action committees made possible by the Supreme Court’s notorious Citizens United decision. These Super PACs can now collect unlimited contributions from “anonymous” donors and spend liberally (not a dirty word for Republicans in this context) to maximize a candidate’s exposure. Under the current system, we’ll never choose a candidate who challenges the system. And of course that’s precisely how the big-money interests would have it.
2. Money seems to buy votes. You’d think that American voters would favor the candidates who impressed them during the recent debating season. You’d think they’d know each candidate’s virtues and foibles by now and have their minds made up. But no… apparently voters are responding to the candidates who campaign most vigorously in their own state. Example: Gingrich put tremendous money and effort into his South Carolina campaign — and guess what? He won. Are voters really so impressionable that a rousing round of pep rallies, baby-kissing and distorted TV ads will brainwash them? The answer is yes. After all, these are the same folks who watch “Jersey Shore” and buy products emblazoned with the magic label “AS SEEN ON TV.” We trust the wisdom of the people, though lately I have to wonder what they’ve been imbibing. As Churchill said, democracy is the worst form of government — except for all the others.
3. Early votes count more than later votes. We’re looking at the fourth contest of the primary season, and yet Romney is already poised to lock up the nomination. What about the other 46 states, you ask? Don’t their votes count? Well, yes and no. They still have to go through the motions, but nobody wants to vote for a prospective loser — with the possible exception of Ron Paul’s fan club. In short, the early primaries count more than the later primaries when it comes to making or breaking a candidate. Unfair? Sure it is. Wouldn’t it be better if all fifty states held their primaries or caucuses on the same day? Of course it would. If all the states can vote for president on a single day, they should be able to choose their party’s candidate the same way.
4. Republican voters were wise to reject fringe candidates. Rabble-rousing right-wingers Michele Bachmann and Rick Perry took the hint and bowed out in the early going. Rick Santorum and Ron Paul are still standing, but they’re no more likely to win the nomination than a turkey is likely to fly nonstop from New York to Seattle. Republicans can choose to make a statement with an uncompromisingly conservative candidate — the way they did with Barry Goldwater back in 1964 — and go down in uncompromising flames. Or they can pick someone of a less ideological bent who actually has a fair chance of capturing moderate votes.
5. Obama is looking stronger all the time. Sure, he’s better at making promises than keeping them. He’s inclined to dither when he needs to lead. And he’s inexplicably tight with Wall Street elites, especially for someone the conservatives love to denounce as a “socialist.” We’re still at war, and the American economy still isn’t looking stellar. But the president has slowly been gaining an aura of invincibility as every single G.O.P. “flavor of the month” candidate has tripped and fallen. The elusive shape-shifting Romney remains upright, but it’s hard to see how a slick representative of the “one percent” can make a case for himself while an increasingly disgruntled middle class still groans under the weight of economic distress. Romney seems the very embodiment of the new haute-capitalist class: more of a shrewd manipulator than a job creator. As for America’s working class and poor, they’re unlikely to vote Republican this year or any year — unless they fall for the misty-eyed G.O.P. notion that America consists of the rich and the “soon-to-be-rich.” Of course it was never true, but something tells me it’s even less true today.
Rick Bayan is founder-editor of The New Moderate.
13 Responses to “What the Republican Primaries of 2012 Are Telling Us”
Hope does not spring eternal in the elephant party these days…and it is most certainly NOT the party of Teddy Roosevelt, anymore…if it ever actually was..
Excellent roundup, Rick. The playing field is full of money pits, and it pits us “honest hard-working Americans” against the bamboozlers.
I have to disagree with your claim that working class and poor Americans will not vote Republican. Just how the hell do they carry the southern states? Did you think that there was some sort of huge voting fee?
The NASCAR and country music crowd vote Republican in a huge way. The Dixie Chicks nearly lost their entire fan base due to their opposition to some of Bush’s policies. These people are working class, they just don’t seem to realize that they are (economically speaking) voting against themselves.
#1 is irrelevant without #2, which is unfortunately true. (with the caveat that I think Romney still outspent Newt in SC, didn’t he?).
I couldn’t disagree more with #3. A national primary day would be a disaster unless it was accompanied by some sort of instant run-off system, which would be difficult in practice. For evidence of this, see #4. What if the entire country was selecting from a field of 8 or 9 on the same day. Good luck sorting out the “winner” of that. The current system, while imperfect, is pretty decent. The later states, while they may not get to vote for their top pick, also may get a deciding role in picking the best of the remaining 2 or 3. See the 2008 Democratic primary. It’s not so bad.
As for #5, that’s subjective. The Obama campaign will certainly try to make that case, but will it sell enough to win him the election? The most recent poll I saw shows a dead heat.
I agree with rcoutme. Maybe many in the south are still suspicious of liberal elites and long for a candidate who will shrink the size of the federal government. Also, the GOP got a lot of votes from southern evangelicals who blamed liberalism for many of the country’s ills.
And, to add to my last comment, a national primary would make the “money” problem much worse. Imagine if the only way you could be a viable candidate is if you could run a campaign simultaneously in 50 states. Rick Santorum is only still around because he worked hard in Iowa.
A national primary makes sense on paper. But, in practice, I think it would be much worse than the current system. Fairer to voters? Maybe. Better outcome? I don’t think so.
I think what the primaries are showing us is that the talent pool in the GOP is shallow enough for children to play in unsupervised.
rcoutme: Of course you’re right about the Southern white evangelicals and Nascar types who vote Republican. Somehow I managed to overlook them in this piece… and they’re a phenomenon that fascinates me. The elite right has convinced these folks that they’re on the same team. How? By using appeals to patriotism, religion, guns, low taxes and shared resentment of snooty liberals (for which I can’t entirely blame them).
adelinesdad: I know a one-day national primary would pose financial and logistical problems. If I had my way, I’d actually ban campaign advertising — since nearly all of it is distorted, willfully misleading propaganda (and requires huge piles of cash). Maybe the candidates need to cut back on travel, too. After all, we’re living in the age of YouTube, Twitter and frequent debates — candidates should be able to get the message out without all those frantic campaign stops. Sure, it’s nice to see a candidate in person… it’s an American tradition. But it can be scaled back. A national primary day isn’t a perfect solution, but at least it would give all the states a voice in selecting a nominee… instead of leaving it to the states with the earliest primaries.
slamfu: Good line (and I agree)!
Not resentment of snooty liberals, but of Black people…
It’s the “I’d rather eat shit than give a nickel to a negro” syndrome, what do you think the entire discussion of food stamps was about in South Carolina other than a polite way of screaming “N**ger, n**ger”?
Basically the States of the former CSA have two political parties, one who represents the interest of the Whites and one who represents the interest of the Blacks.
Pick any Southern State, give or take a couple of percentage points, the democratic share of the vote will match that of the African population and that the republican share of the vote will match that of the White population.
QF: Interesting observations. I didn’t think the “New South” was still so racist, though those stats are pretty telling. Frankly, I never hear racist remarks when I listen to Fox News or right-wing radio, with the exception of the occasional veiled wisecrack from Rush Limbaugh. On the other hand, they’re constantly flinging barbs at Nancy Pelosi and other elite liberals. I’ve always found it paradoxical that America’s liberals (at least white liberals) tend to rank higher on the socioeconomic scale than conservatives. I think there’s quite a bit of class resentment on the part of rank-and-file conservatives toward their better educated progressive rivals.
RICK BAYAN,
Here is a pop quiz question for you:
How many elected white democrats from the former states of the CSA are there in the House of Representative?
BTW, When you hear some jackass rant on Pelosi on Right Wing radio, you’ll never hear them talk about policy, what you’re hearing is “Faggot, faggot”.