by John McG - December 3, 2007
It remains very unlikely that a Republican will win the general election next November, but, similar to the 1972 Democratic nomination, the selection of the nominee could have a tremendous impact on politics for several year hence.
The Democratic nomination contest seems to be more about personal style and electability than real policy differences. A President Clinton, Edwards, or Obama would likely scale back (but not eliminate) US military presence in Iraq, appoint judges with a more expansive view of the meaning of the Constitution, and push for something approaching universal health care. The details differ, but the contest is more about who will be the most effective candidate come November.
On the Republican side, there appears to be a real clash of ideas, with the future direction of the party at stake.
For years, there has been an internal tug of war between the various factions of the Republican party, typically manifesting itself into arguments over what it means to be a "real" conservative. Social conservatives have no use for a government that does nothing about (and even helps enforce) it when people want to withhold food and water from a woman with PVS. Small government conservatives see intervention in this case as a government overreach.
In addition to debates about who has the stronger claim to the mantle of conservatism, there are debates about what is the greater electoral liability. Fiscal conservatives find the social conservatives' moralizing embarrassing, and thinks it costs Republicans come election time. Social conservatives face charges of hypocrisy for claiming to support the dignity of human life while belonging to a political party disinclined to invest in programs to assist the poor or help married couples.
So who has the better of the argument?
Well, we're about to find out. Whether because the factions are drifting further apart or because he is an ineffective leader, George W. Bush has not managed to keep the party together. Nobody is satisfied with Bush, and each faction thinks he is too eager to cater to the other factions while delivering little to itself.
The candidates running as vanilla Republicans -- notably Mitt Romney and Fred Thompson -- are gaining little traction. It isn't clear if this is a problem with the candidates themselves or the message, but the energy seems to be with those representing factions of the Party -- Rudy Giuliani, Mike Huckabee, and Ron Paul.
Giuliani represents the "national security" portion of the Republican coalition, branding himself as the one candidate tough enough to carry out the war on terror. He supports the surge as well as the expansions of executive privileges and enahanced interrogation techniques including waterboarding. He has not attempted to reconcile his socially liberal views with the more conservative views of the party, telling social conservatives he respects them too much to pander to them. If this election were in 2004 rather than now, Giuliani would be the presumptive nominee.
Huckabee represents the "compassionate conservaitsm" faction. He supports the Iraq war, but doesn't make it a theme of his campaign, and defers to John McCain on waterboarding. He famously raised his hand in support of intelligent design. He's a former preacher, and regularly refers to his religious faith. Had George W. Bush successfully implemented the domestic agenda he campaigned on in 2000, Huckabee would be his natural successor.
Ron Paul is the small government conservative. His main theme has been strong opposition to the Iraq invasion, and American interventionism in general. He wants to see the federal government exercise less power than it does now. He holds socially conservative positions, but does not stress them.
If any of these three win, there will be a significant portion of the Republican Party that will find it difficult to support him in the general election.
In my mind, this is a good thing. The Republicans will make it clear who they are and what they stand for. It may not be a party that welcomes me, or a party that I want to see win, but it will be clear what I am accepting or rejecting. If the Republicans nominate Giuliani, social conservatives will be in no position to be disappointed when he fails to deliver results to them. If Huckabee is the nominee, fiscal and small government conservatives cannot claim to be betrayed when he proposes some lavish government program. This is who we are -- take it or leave it.
What follows may be more interesting. What will the losers do? Some may suck it up and stay out of habit. Others might switch to the Democrats out of spite. Or it could be the beginning of the third party.
In any instance, it would be the end of the current Republican coalition, and a new direction for the Republican Party.
It's still possible that the Republicans could step back from the brink and nominate someone like John McCain who would have a broader base of support. But that doesn't seem to be their inclination right now. The results should be clarifying.
John McG. is a father and software engineer living in St. Louis, MO. He blogs at Man Bites Blog.