Crazy But True: Ronald Reagan or George Bush Would Barely Stand a Chance in the Year 2012
Published in de Volkskrant
(Netherlands) on 3 March 2012
by Paul Brill (link to original)
(Netherlands) on 3 March 2012
by Paul Brill (link to original)
Translated from
by Anne Hukkelhoven.
Edited by Katie Marinello.
The Republican Party in the United States is facing the problem of conservative fanatics dominating the political debate, so much so that moderate politicians can hardly clear this hurdle, writes Paul Brill.
The question is self-evident: Are the Republicans going to be able to win this election year? Surreptitiously, their primary circus has fallen victim to an atmosphere of malaise. None of the remaining candidates arouses large amounts of enthusiasm in the voting public.
Yes, Rick Santorum and Newt Gingrich touch the hearts of fundamentalist Christians and very conservative groups, while outsider Ron Paul can be proud of a loyal following of libertarian conservatives. But if the followers of this threesome use their brains, they know that none of these testimony-politicians stands a serious chance for the final victory. Mitt Romney seemed to have had promise initially, but he lacks a true spark between him and the voters. He also has the special talent of making a mistake at the exact moment he tries to loosen up as a candidate on the campaign trail.
Because of a trip to a faraway country, I wrote this column a couple of days ago, when the results of the primaries in Arizona and Michigan had just come in.
In the profoundly Republican state of Arizona, Romney, who had the support of almost all key players in the party, gained an easy victory. But he could draw little extra prestige from that.
Battle States
It all came down to Michigan, considered one of the battle states in November. Michigan is unique in that it allows non-Republicans to vote in the primary. Romney grew up in this state and his father was a popular, successful governor there in the ‘60s. Four years ago, Mitt Romney beat John McCain here with an almost 10-point difference. This time his main competitor, Santorum, maintained the lead by only four points. Still, this was a stifling victory: Romney’s campaign spent truckloads of money on the race and his failure casts a shroud of doubt around his candidacy. If he cannot appeal to the voters in his own Michigan, where can he?
Several pundits are already taking into account that the battle in the Republican camp will continue heatedly after Super Tuesday (March 6). They also consider the possibility that none of the candidates will succeed in getting the support of the number of delegates needed for the nomination before the Republican convention at the end of August.
Disadvantage
In itself, that does not have to be a disadvantage. See the Democratic preliminaries four years ago: Then, also, the tug-of-war over delegates continued for a long time. The big difference is that in 2008, Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton both in their own way aroused enthusiasm and were seen as political heavyweights (although Obama’s experience was questionable). Two historic breakthrough candidates were fighting for supremacy. Such an excitement is now completely absent with the Republicans. In this group, a candidate with no charisma stands against one with no stature.
Is this mainly bad luck or is more going on? In history, it has happened before that both Democrats and Republicans were resigned to nominating their second choice because stronger candidates did not deem their time ripe or were not familiar enough to the public. In 1996, Bob Dole as Republican challenger of Bill Clinton was really an admission of weakness by the party, while John Kerry in 2004 was not considered the ideal Democratic opponent of George Bush.
Nor is it unusual that during primary season, the Republican suitors polish their conservative signature, while the Democrats show off their progressive credentials. After the conventions, the inevitable pull to the middle occurs.
Moderates
But the problem on the Republican side is that conservative fanatics have started to dominate the political debate in such a way that moderate politicians can barely clear the hurdle of the primaries. That development started before the emergence of the tea party, but has now reached a very upsetting height. The consequence is that someone like Romney has to belie a large part of his past and that the candidates mainly try to surpass each other in ideological purity.
It is crazy but true: A Ronald Reagan or a George Bush would hardly stand a chance in the year 2012 for the Republican nomination; they were far too left-leaning. Not to mention Richard Nixon, who consciously made a deal with the moderate wing of the party in 1960 about the election program and scolded conservative critics, saying, “How stupid can you be to reject this?”*
For the Obama campaign and the Democratic Party this is all good news. But for the American democracy, it is a bad sign. Controlled conservatism connects well with many Americans’ position in life. It would be an impoverishment to the system if capable politicians from that corner could not cut it or succeeded only by putting on a false wig.
*Editor’s Note: This quote, while accurately translated, cannot be verified.
The question is self-evident: Are the Republicans going to be able to win this election year? Surreptitiously, their primary circus has fallen victim to an atmosphere of malaise. None of the remaining candidates arouses large amounts of enthusiasm in the voting public.
Yes, Rick Santorum and Newt Gingrich touch the hearts of fundamentalist Christians and very conservative groups, while outsider Ron Paul can be proud of a loyal following of libertarian conservatives. But if the followers of this threesome use their brains, they know that none of these testimony-politicians stands a serious chance for the final victory. Mitt Romney seemed to have had promise initially, but he lacks a true spark between him and the voters. He also has the special talent of making a mistake at the exact moment he tries to loosen up as a candidate on the campaign trail.
Because of a trip to a faraway country, I wrote this column a couple of days ago, when the results of the primaries in Arizona and Michigan had just come in.
In the profoundly Republican state of Arizona, Romney, who had the support of almost all key players in the party, gained an easy victory. But he could draw little extra prestige from that.
Battle States
It all came down to Michigan, considered one of the battle states in November. Michigan is unique in that it allows non-Republicans to vote in the primary. Romney grew up in this state and his father was a popular, successful governor there in the ‘60s. Four years ago, Mitt Romney beat John McCain here with an almost 10-point difference. This time his main competitor, Santorum, maintained the lead by only four points. Still, this was a stifling victory: Romney’s campaign spent truckloads of money on the race and his failure casts a shroud of doubt around his candidacy. If he cannot appeal to the voters in his own Michigan, where can he?
Several pundits are already taking into account that the battle in the Republican camp will continue heatedly after Super Tuesday (March 6). They also consider the possibility that none of the candidates will succeed in getting the support of the number of delegates needed for the nomination before the Republican convention at the end of August.
Disadvantage
In itself, that does not have to be a disadvantage. See the Democratic preliminaries four years ago: Then, also, the tug-of-war over delegates continued for a long time. The big difference is that in 2008, Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton both in their own way aroused enthusiasm and were seen as political heavyweights (although Obama’s experience was questionable). Two historic breakthrough candidates were fighting for supremacy. Such an excitement is now completely absent with the Republicans. In this group, a candidate with no charisma stands against one with no stature.
Is this mainly bad luck or is more going on? In history, it has happened before that both Democrats and Republicans were resigned to nominating their second choice because stronger candidates did not deem their time ripe or were not familiar enough to the public. In 1996, Bob Dole as Republican challenger of Bill Clinton was really an admission of weakness by the party, while John Kerry in 2004 was not considered the ideal Democratic opponent of George Bush.
Nor is it unusual that during primary season, the Republican suitors polish their conservative signature, while the Democrats show off their progressive credentials. After the conventions, the inevitable pull to the middle occurs.
Moderates
But the problem on the Republican side is that conservative fanatics have started to dominate the political debate in such a way that moderate politicians can barely clear the hurdle of the primaries. That development started before the emergence of the tea party, but has now reached a very upsetting height. The consequence is that someone like Romney has to belie a large part of his past and that the candidates mainly try to surpass each other in ideological purity.
It is crazy but true: A Ronald Reagan or a George Bush would hardly stand a chance in the year 2012 for the Republican nomination; they were far too left-leaning. Not to mention Richard Nixon, who consciously made a deal with the moderate wing of the party in 1960 about the election program and scolded conservative critics, saying, “How stupid can you be to reject this?”*
For the Obama campaign and the Democratic Party this is all good news. But for the American democracy, it is a bad sign. Controlled conservatism connects well with many Americans’ position in life. It would be an impoverishment to the system if capable politicians from that corner could not cut it or succeeded only by putting on a false wig.
*Editor’s Note: This quote, while accurately translated, cannot be verified.
Next article![]( "An Obama Victory? That’s What the Dow Says")
