I've come to a realization about the three current front runners of the race for the Republican nomination. It might be a conclusion some of you have reached or may be none of you have reached.
The three front runners -- Mitt Romney, Ron Paul, and Rick Santorum -- have illustrated to me that idealism should be considered a drug and the Food and Drug Administration should publish pamphlets that state it is more toxic than heroin and cocaine could ever be.
Mitt Romney's candidacy (and apparently, inevitable nomination) is a result of the "Republican establishment" that is obsessed with maintaining power for the ideological ego of the Republican Party. Let's face it -- I really doubt anyone cares about anything that comes out of Mitt Romney's mouth outside of the media, ever. If you go out on to the street and ask someone randomly what are the things that Mitt Romney stands for, you would get an answer of "I'm not quite sure, but I know he's our best bet to beat Obama." Romney has emerged as the "establishment's" top choice for he is a byproduct of an attempt to finally have a coherently operating Republican political machine. They haven't had once since the late 1970s.
That attempt to have a coherently operating political machine is a side effect of Republican Party's idealist drug for finding the next "groundbreaking neoconservative" that will be the indisputable face of the Republican Party, or in other words, to finally resolve the Republican identity-crisis that has persisted since January 20, 1989 when Ronald Reagan was no longer President of the United States. There was Newt Gingrich during the early 1990s until he fell flat on his face during the infamous government shutdown that opened 1996. Tom Delay dominated 1997 and 1998, especially during the Clinton impeachment era, but his career was torched by his campaign finance scandal in the early 2000s. Finally, there was George W. Bush, but even he lost favor with the vaulted establishment during the last year and a half of his term. As with with any narcotic, this time idealism, addiction has its consequences. For the Republican Party, it is the search for Reagan to end in hubris every single time.
Ron Paul is the Libertarian People's Champion. He's also the champion for disgruntled progressives and liberals that have become enamored with his libertarian (or adopted liberal) social agenda and his non-interventionist foreign policy talk. Libertarians and others that lean libertarian look at him as someone that would get the government out of their hair with spending cuts, repeals of regulatory legislation, and implementing Austrian school economic policies. He has a sort of a populist appeal (you can see it among his supporters, who some pejoratively call "PaulBots"), even though he's not a populist. However, he's not above the idealist vacuum. Behind the "free society" campaign cloak is the really the idealist visionary mantra in the form of the rhetorical question of "Why should I pay for other people's problems?" It's the rejection of "everyone has to pay their fair share" -- with the point/counterpoint of view nuanced in how personal comfort and worldview.
The reality is that Paul, if elected, would never have the cooperation of Congress -- too left leaning for some and too right leaning for others. Resorting to pocket vetoes, vetoes, and Executive Orders, he would score major points with his core libertarian supporters, but moderates, liberals, progressives, and other conservatives would quickly sour on him as he would be painted as an uncooperative, obstructive executive. In addition, someone would eventually call him out that as a strict Constitutionalist he sure does seem hypocritical for relying on the Executive Order to achieve his goals -- which by the way comes from a loose interpretation of Article II. In the end though, his free society vision is going to inevitably clash with what Americans are really wishing for -- to have a comfortable and stable life. As pressure will mount for him to come back to the grounds of reality and be forced to compromise for the sake of well, compromise, his most die-hard supporters are going to find themselves disappointed more times than being elated.
Rick Santorum is more or less having visions of grandeur of creating a quasi-Christian-fascist state that will serve as an answer to the Sharia-law driven Arab countries such as Iran. He has the support of the extreme Christian Right, which flirts without right bigoted and xenophobic rhetoric. I don't know whether to call it just being confident, just being arrogant, or so heavily intoxicated by the narcotic that is Christian nationalism he seems on the verge of being downright delusional.
He seems to have forgotten about the trajectory of what was once a, well, um...political career. He was never a star of the Senate as much as he claims to be and he was soundly defeated in his reelection bid in 2006. In truth, the only reason why Santorum is getting any sort of attention is because he's the only candidate that is catering to the Religious Right as Mike Huckabee is spending his time hosting his show on Fox News and not on the campaign trail. In reality, if Santorum was to ever win the election, he would never see his dream of a Christian state materialize. His incessant hard-on for war against Iran and to further shove the United States down the throat of the Middle Eastern political scene will bloat defense spending and as a result, he would be seen as the second coming of Bush 43.
Granted, I seriously doubt any one of these three will be elected into office. Romney's appeal when translated into general national conversation becomes more questionable as it deepens towards Election Day. Paul's anti-big-government rhetoric will not carry the same weight as it did Reagan in 1980 because as Obama's administration and first term overall can be described as "suspect", not "humiliating", and Americans will tolerate "suspect". Santorum will have almost no momentum if he won the nomination because he's way too polarizing of a figure.
Yet, while no politician is above the drug of idealism, I wanted to illustrate these three candidates specifically because they are doing the exact same thing that Obama did back in 2008 -- fill supporters up with such enthusiasm fueled by their own idealism that when it comes time for Game Day, which would be January 20, 2013 -- it's going to lead to sound disappointment.
No comments:
Post a Comment