Caucus politicking part of bigger drama
For all the pride Iowa takes in its first-in-the-nation caucus, for all the attention the state’s voters get from candidates, for all of the column inches and broadcast hours consumed by reporting stories before, during and after voting, the impact is almost entirely rhetorical.
Consider: All 28 of Iowa’s Republican convention delegates are unbound by the results of Tuesday’s voting. They’ll be free to cast their votes at the convention for whomever they wish, no matter how their fellow citizens voted.
And while a defeat might be especially bitter for a candidate such as Rep. Michele Bachmann — who won the Ames straw poll back in August — the results of Iowa’s voting aren’t likely to prove fatal to any of the seven remaining Republican candidates.
But it sure is fun to watch, isn’t it?
Former Pennsylvania Sen. Rick Santorum thinks Texas Rep. Ron Paul is “disgusting.” Paul thinks all of his rivals are big-government squishes. Bachmann claims to have a “titanium spine.” Former Speaker Newt Gingrich’s positive campaign includes calling ex-Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney a liar, and a PAC run by ex-Romney aides has given Gingrich a $3 million beating.
As one Facebook friend correctly said, it’s a hot mess.
Behind the vitriol, however, an important drama is playing out, one that will continue until the Republicans finally settle on a nominee (we hope sometime after Nevada’s tardy Feb. 4 caucus). And that’s the age-old battle between principle and pragmatism.
Principle candidates such as Santorum and Perry went around during the caucus urging voters not to settle for a less-than-authentic conservative candidate, meaning somebody such as Romney. In turn, pragmatic candidates such as Romney were urging voters to nominate somebody who can actually defeat President Barack Obama.
Both the principled and the pragmatic have ample evidence of where their opponents went astray. Republicans lost in 1964 when they nominated Barry Goldwater, the man who declared that extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice. They lost in 2010 when they opted for principle conservatives Christine O’Donnell in Delaware and Sharron Angle in Nevada, even though there were more electable Republicans available.
But the pragmatists lost in 1976, rejecting Ronald Reagan for incumbent Gerald Ford, and in 2008, when John McCain won the nomination over conservatives such as Paul and (Iowa caucus winner) Mike Huckabee. (Notably, Romney was also among the 2008 also-rans, and his strong 2012 candidacy highlights the Republican tradition of giving failed candidates a second chance, sometimes to great effect, as in the case of Reagan.)
The conundrum: Nominating Romney in order to engineer the best chance of winning is self-defeating, because Romney can’t be trusted to govern as what Santorum calls a “conservative of conviction.” But nominating a principled conservative such as Santorum, Paul or Bachmann is also self-defeating, because those candidates don’t have as much a chance to win.
Ultimately, the 2012 election is going to be about the economy, and which Republican is best suited to take on a president who has a lackluster record, at best, in that department. That means this will ultimately be a year of pragmatism, and very likely a year for Romney, whose credentials are best suited for that fight. In fact, he’s the only candidate in the current field who’s capable of beating Obama come Election Day.
But with months to go before that day comes, Republicans are still having their quadrennial pragmatism versus principle debate. We shouldn’t try to truncate that; it’s important for democracy and a critical exercise for all voters, regardless of party, who are struggling to figure out what kind of a country and a government they want.
Steve Sebelius is a Review-Journal political columnist and author of the blog SlashPolitics.com. Follow him on Twitter at www.Twitter.com/SteveSebelius or reach him at 387-5276 or SSebelius@reviewjournal.com.
