America’s Torn Conservative Movement
Published in Die Welt
(Germany) on 4 January 2012
by Clemens Wergin (link to original)
(Germany) on 4 January 2012
by Clemens Wergin (link to original)
Translated from
by Sidonie Straughn-Morse.
Edited by Jessica Boesl.
With the first primary in Iowa, the fight for the Republican presidential nomination has entered its most important phase. That event has shown how the party has been torn apart, and how uncertain the conservative movement in America is of its own identity.
There’s the conventional and pragmatic, economically oriented branch, personified by Mitt Romney, who walked away with a razor-thin victory but elicits no excitement, and the most moderate candidate (and because he’s Mormon), who has been observed with suspicion from the social-conservative spectrum. The Christian, ultra-conservative group will most likely go for Rick Santorum, the surprising second in the Iowa caucus, who, with remarkably little money, managed to equal Romney’s well-oiled campaigning machine. And then there’s the libertarian Ron Paul, who also brought in surprisingly good results. He stands for America’s anti-nationalistic, radically libertarian impulse and for any number of populist reflexes. At the same time, he’s the candidate from whom we have the most to fear — he’s inclined toward conspiracy theories and in his foreign policy, supports a kind of isolationism that can best be described as very strange. At least Ron Paul would be, in many respects, a radical break with many of the things Republicans have believed until now about America’s exceptional role in the world.
The good news from Iowa is that in very socially conservative and slightly mixed states, the moderate Romney could nevertheless win. Romney’s chances look good that in less conservative states, he might bring even better results, and as the man in the middle, he also has the best chance of competing against Barack Obama. Obama’s campaign staff has already taken shots at Romney.
The bad news is that the libertarian impulses of the tea party movement seem to especially benefit the “wild card” Ron Paul, whose sectarian worldview and radicalism make one shudder to imagine that he could actually enter the race as the Republican presidential candidate. The Paul phenomenon demonstrates that there is an eerie potential for rage against the prevailing conditions in America, which could be discharged politically in unforeseen and surprising ways.
It is an anger that feeds on the threat of the demise of the traditional middle-class dream of advancement in America. Even well-educated young Americans have big problems today, including finding a job that even roughly corresponds to their training. And the prolonged economic crisis has allowed incomes to stagnate for those who do still have work. At the same time, many citizens feel that the economic and political elites responsible for this misery have not really faced the same pain as “middle America.”
Moreover, America is now no longer the land of opportunities and social advancement. Meanwhile, five large studies in recent years have found that social advancement is higher in many European countries than in the U.S. To a greater extent than elsewhere in the developed world, America’s rich come from families who already have a high income. Neither Romney nor Paul nor Santorum have a satisfactory answer to this devastating refutation of the American Dream. How to give Americans a more equal start in life is not exactly a traditional Republican topic.
The caucus in Iowa shows us that the conservatives in America appear to not know exactly what they want: Culture warrior? Isolationist? Moralist? Friend to business? Anti-establishment-populist? For this reason, this Republican primary season will still be good for all sorts of surprises.
There’s the conventional and pragmatic, economically oriented branch, personified by Mitt Romney, who walked away with a razor-thin victory but elicits no excitement, and the most moderate candidate (and because he’s Mormon), who has been observed with suspicion from the social-conservative spectrum. The Christian, ultra-conservative group will most likely go for Rick Santorum, the surprising second in the Iowa caucus, who, with remarkably little money, managed to equal Romney’s well-oiled campaigning machine. And then there’s the libertarian Ron Paul, who also brought in surprisingly good results. He stands for America’s anti-nationalistic, radically libertarian impulse and for any number of populist reflexes. At the same time, he’s the candidate from whom we have the most to fear — he’s inclined toward conspiracy theories and in his foreign policy, supports a kind of isolationism that can best be described as very strange. At least Ron Paul would be, in many respects, a radical break with many of the things Republicans have believed until now about America’s exceptional role in the world.
The good news from Iowa is that in very socially conservative and slightly mixed states, the moderate Romney could nevertheless win. Romney’s chances look good that in less conservative states, he might bring even better results, and as the man in the middle, he also has the best chance of competing against Barack Obama. Obama’s campaign staff has already taken shots at Romney.
The bad news is that the libertarian impulses of the tea party movement seem to especially benefit the “wild card” Ron Paul, whose sectarian worldview and radicalism make one shudder to imagine that he could actually enter the race as the Republican presidential candidate. The Paul phenomenon demonstrates that there is an eerie potential for rage against the prevailing conditions in America, which could be discharged politically in unforeseen and surprising ways.
It is an anger that feeds on the threat of the demise of the traditional middle-class dream of advancement in America. Even well-educated young Americans have big problems today, including finding a job that even roughly corresponds to their training. And the prolonged economic crisis has allowed incomes to stagnate for those who do still have work. At the same time, many citizens feel that the economic and political elites responsible for this misery have not really faced the same pain as “middle America.”
Moreover, America is now no longer the land of opportunities and social advancement. Meanwhile, five large studies in recent years have found that social advancement is higher in many European countries than in the U.S. To a greater extent than elsewhere in the developed world, America’s rich come from families who already have a high income. Neither Romney nor Paul nor Santorum have a satisfactory answer to this devastating refutation of the American Dream. How to give Americans a more equal start in life is not exactly a traditional Republican topic.
The caucus in Iowa shows us that the conservatives in America appear to not know exactly what they want: Culture warrior? Isolationist? Moralist? Friend to business? Anti-establishment-populist? For this reason, this Republican primary season will still be good for all sorts of surprises.