Posted under Election 2012 & Foreign affairs & Interventionism & Political Philosophy & Politics & Republican Party
Have you ever watched an athletic contest in which you have no particular rooting interest, but pick a team to root for anyway based on some logical reason (they are geographically closer, you have a friend who likes them, you like one particular player, etc.), but found yourself rooting at an emotional level for the other team against the team you logically decided you should support? Maybe I’m weird, but that’s what last night was like for me.
This illustrates the emotional and visceral nature of politics. People do not always vote logically as much as us wonkish types would like to believe they do. People often vote based on their gut. Yesterday my gut was talking to me.
As Walter points out, Romney is probably better on immigration although I don’t trust either Santorum or Romney on the issue. I could see Santorum doing a sentimental Catholic squish on immigration as well as I could see Romney doing a moderate squish on immigration.
Where I think Romney is likely better is foreign policy. Romney has surrounded himself with neocon advisers and his public foreign policy pronouncements are pitch perfect neoconservatism, but Romney is fundamentally a moderate in both policy and temperament. Therefore I think he is more likely to proceed with caution and carefully weigh all the political ramifications before plunging us into another war. Santorum, on the other hand, has distinguished himself for his comical alarmism.
I think foreign policy, specifically not plunging us into a disastrous war with Iran, is the most imminent issue. (I hope to distinguish between important and imminent issues in a future post.) This alone is reason enough to support Ron Paul. Paul will not plunge us into war with Iran. All the others might. Romney may be marginally less likely to do so than Santorum. So by logic I should have been rooting for Romney between the two, but emotionally I wasn’t. Emotionally I was rooting for Santorum.
Here’s why and it is mostly visceral identity politics as you will see. Every four years the Republican Party has a charade of a primary and then eventually nominates the inevitable Establishment centrist who everyone knew was going to be the nominee to begin with - George H. W. Bush, Bob Dole, George W. Bush, John McCain. Why bother even having a primary except to make the Buchanan or Forbes or Thompson or Keyes (etc., etc. etc.) supporters of the world think they actually have a say in the process? This is extremely disheartening and illustrates either the power of the Establishment and/or the sheep like nature of the plurality/majority of the Republican primary electorate. Once, just once, it would be nice to see this cycle broken. Just once I would like to see some upstart beat the inevitable nominee.
I am under no delusion that Santorum somehow represents authentic conservatism vs. Romney’s Establishment centrism. If Ron Paul is not the Republican nominee, I will vote third party. But Santorum is the ”conservative” alternative to Romney according to the current distorted paradigm whether we like it or not.
Those of us on the “far right” who see ourselves as to the right of “mainstream conservatism” have two tasks on our hands. The first is to break the stranglehold of the centrist Establishment and pragmatic politics on what passes for conservative politics these days. The second is to convince those “conservatives” who see themselves as conservatives and in opposition to centrism to embrace authentic conservatism and reject the inauthentic version they currently mistakenly believe is the real thing. If Romney is the nominee we still have both tasks to accomplish. If Santorum somehow manages to get the nomination, then we have only the latter task to complete. Of course this isn’t the real world, but is my conceptual gestalt visceral way of looking at it and explains why my heart was rooting for Santorum while my head was telling me I should have been rooting for Romney.
Sean Scallon on 04 Jan 2012 at 11:50 pm #
Good points, unfortunately Santorum will never get a direct shot at Romney because Gingrich and Perry persist on hanging around. The establishment candidates win because the Right opposition base is always divided and the establishment candidate is not so odious he is deemed unacceptable to said base and in fact has pockets of support within that base which makes the candidate almost unbeatable.
What needs to be addressed it seems is what is wrong with contemporary conservatism that such divisions persist and continue to allow the Romney’s, McCain, Bushes and Doles to win? The last almost united front Right conservatives had was Reagan.
Aaron on 05 Jan 2012 at 4:57 am #
How does “the Establishment” control this “charade”? Obviously, you’re not saying that most people voted for Michelle Bachmann but the Establishment stuffed the ballot boxes. And how is it that the Democratic Party does nominate “surprise” candidates while the Republican Party doesn’t? Isn’t it the same Establishment?
Here’s another hypothesis. The fringe candidates say stuff that gets people all excited, because those candidates can be less cautious about what they say. Then, eventually, people realize just how fringey the candidates really are, so they drop them. The fringe candidates have a harder time raising money (that’s where the Establishment comes in), so they drop out faster when they lose popular support.
Chris Hewlett on 05 Jan 2012 at 1:12 pm #
Savrola is so brilliant he doesn’t even need to write legible sentences for all of us to bask in the glow of his intelligence.
DanPhillips on 05 Jan 2012 at 2:16 pm #
Aaron, I’m not suggesting that the Establishment stuffs the ballot box, although I don’t rule out vote fraud before the fact. Why should I?
One of the things that is so frustrating is that it is hard to identify the exact mechanism whereby the Establishment always gets it way. It’s the press. It’s money. It’s consultants. It’s establishment “conservatism.” It’s the voters. I think your hypothesis has some merit although I wouldn’t use the pejorative “fringy.” Part of my point is that what is now “fringy” (constitutionalism for example) should be the mainstream. I think in early states it is easier for voters to embrace non-establishment candidates because they are playing with house money so to speak. As the process winds on I think voters become more concerned about pragmatic issue like who can beat the other guy. This is why I said we need to break the stranglehold of “pragmatic politics” as well. I get political pragmatism in the short term, but as a long term strategy it is a strategy of slow surrender. You have to draw a line of “here and no further” at some point or you will continue down a very predictable path.
We bemoan the fact that voters aren’t very informed on the issues and often vote for superficial reasons, and this is true. But even simple-minded uninformed voters regard pragmatic concerns highly. I have recently been involved in some conversations with Fox News identity politics type Republicans (I’m not suggesting these people were simple-minded or uninformed by average standards) who were willing to agree with me about all sorts of “fringy” things but ultimately boiled it all down to who could beat Obama. “We just can’t have another four years of this guy.” This mindset is virtually impossible to overcome, but it so obviously serves the interests of the centrist Establishment. This is why you can’t get people to even consider voting third party.
Matt Weber on 05 Jan 2012 at 3:37 pm #
That’s true about the tribalism and complete unacceptability of the other party — and despite the common memes it isn’t just Republicans who think this way by any means. So maybe that’s a good place to start? Obama is a lousy president, but he isn’t any lousier than GWB (I know, not a high bar, but still). So maybe conservatives can be convinced that 4 more years of Obama might be worth risking if it forces the establishment to make some concessions.
Aaron on 05 Jan 2012 at 7:00 pm #
First of all, the “Establishment” (if the term means anything at all) often does not get its way. Richard Nixon and Ronald Reagan were presidents, remember. And as I said, the Democrats quite often select candidates who are opposed by the “Establishment.”
Second, if the mechanisms of control are so frustratingly difficult to identify, consider that maybe in this particular case there aren’t any. The media have been opposed to the marginal candidates from the beginning, including the period when they were very popular. When did the media like Michelle Bachmann? So media antagonism doesn’t explain their loss of popularity. And people do freely vote for the Romneys and McCains, so if it’s not the media brainwashing them, then who?
I suggest looking at the simple, obvious explanations. At least, don’t rule them out from the start. Everyone knows what it’s like to be infatuated with a person, then to lose interest once you get to know that person better. Not just their faults – their annoying laugh, etc. – but also their personality as a whole, which isn’t as in tune with your ideal as you’d first thought.
But I’m actually ascribing agency to voters who vote wrong. I know that’s heresy on much of the “far right,” which has embraced the old cultural Marxist model of public opinion. If the people vote wrong, they must be brainwashed by the Establishment.
C Bowen on 05 Jan 2012 at 9:25 pm #
Aaron;
Basically, in these caucuses, very few people show up. Those that do, tend to represent the interest or social circle of the local head. The local head can be easily paid off; just like the local pastor can with a timely donation.
Romney was famous for donations to the state Republican parties last go round. This is completely reasonable to a point, but parties have engaged in regulatory capture to ensure limited ballot access to rivals.
_
Nixon’s VP was railroaded, and he got Ford.
Reagan fired his campaign manager and, despite promises to the contrary, hired an insider a week before the New Hampshire primary–he started purging conservatives very early. Again, that Summer, breaking a promise to exclude Trilats and CFR members like George HW Bush from VP consideration, he named GHW Bush as his VP.
(That he got shot in March the following year from a Bush family acquaintance will not be covered in this post.)
Nate Weinstein on 06 Jan 2012 at 4:42 am #
At least Santorum and Romney have a conservative foreign policy unlike Ron Paul who has fried his brain from doing cocaine and heroin and thinks that a nuculear Iran is not a threat and that black people should not have any human rights.
Sean Scallon on 06 Jan 2012 at 8:54 am #
“We just can’t have another four years of this guy.”
Yeah and they said that about Bill Clinton too. So how did pragmatic Dole work out? I guess another four years of Clinton didn’t turn out too bad since they all made some money.
These voters have had every chance to vote for a non-Mitt or a non-Bush or non-Dole or a non-McCain every four years. And four years they do not choose such persons. Part of the problem is that there are too many of the “non” candidates which divides the vote but eventually they go with who the winner is going to be and thus the Buchanans and the Forbes and Keyes and Huckabees and Paul get left behind. They convince themselves this guy can be winner and it doesn’t happen they get mad and start muttering about RINOs and betrayal and non conservative enough and then become milita members of Tea Party activists.
But in the end they have nobody to blame but themselves. Because they know what they’re against more so than they know what their for, it’s easy for them to fall in the trap of supporting the “most electable”. The last time they had it figured out was in 1984 but the conservative crack-up since then has left them at the mercy of the establishment because there hasn’t been since one person who can unite them.
Walter on 06 Jan 2012 at 3:14 pm #
Nate,
I love your new video:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CueQ4cYYSJ0&feature=channel_video_title
Made me laugh.
DanPhillips on 06 Jan 2012 at 6:28 pm #
Aaron, when I use Establishment with a capital E it is essentially equivalent to the Powers That Be. It is an intentionally amorphus word used to described something it is hard to describe more specifically. I am not necessarily implying any kind of complex conspiratorial invisible hand.
And contrary to your assertion, I am quite willing to blame the voters and frequently do. When people say Ron Paul can’t win because of his fringe positions I will often reply that it is unfortunate and a sad indictment that people who consider themselves conservatives aren’t yet willing to embrace principled constitutionalism or something like that. In fact, I almost concluded my remarks about the oppressive power of pragmatism with an indictment of first past the goal post electorial systems and democracy in general but decided to leave that alone. I have also frequently said the our current fiscal problems are the perils of democracy and/or the excesses of democracy. People who want less taxes and more spending or who want less spending in the agragate but not in the particular are acting like a bunch of children.
That said, the fact that I am more than willing to blame the voters doesn’t mean that the Establishment doesn’t have a pernicious effect. Those GOP primary voters I talked about above were all concerned about Iran. They’re going to nuke us. They’re going to block the Straits of Hormuz. Part of that is on them for not being aware enough, but part of that is on Fox News for lying to them and deliberately whipping up war fever.
Kyle Kopelovich on 07 Jan 2012 at 8:08 am #
Mitt Romney is not a moderate about killing terrorism and supporting the patriot act which will defend America against all kinds of terror. Mitt Romney is not a liberal like Ron Paul or Pat Buchanan and actually knows the true facts: The USA government keeps us safe from terror.