THE PERMANENT CAMPAIGN MARCH 25, 2011
-
Read Later
READ LATERAvailable only to subscribers. SUBSCRIBE TODAY
-
Listen
ARTICLE AUDIO
- Font Size
This week, Tim Pawlenty formally launched an exploratory committee to run for president. His path to the GOP’s 2012 nomination is reasonably clear: He will try to become everybody’s second choice in a field full of deeply flawed candidates, and there’s a fairly convincing case that he’ll succeed. Strikingly, though, this case for T-Paw in 2012 is essentially the same as the case that was made for Pawlenty as John McCain’s running-mate in 2008. He was a pleasant guy from a battleground region of the country, with a successful state-level political career, who didn’t offend any of the major veto-wielding factions within the Republican Party and the conservative movement. He also had a suitably all-American biography and once devised a slogan—“Sam’s Club Republicans”—that nicely reflects what Republicans like to think about themselves.
But it’s also useful to remember why John McCain did not in fact put the Minnesotan on his ticket: When it came down to a choice between Pawlenty and an obscure Alaskan named Sarah Palin, it was obvious that Pawlenty didn’t move the needle in terms of the GOP’s prospects for victory. “Pawlenty was credible and acceptable, but once the convention was over he would disappear,” thought McCain’s advisers, according to one insider account. Palin, on the other hand, was the “high risk, high reward” candidate, who would energize the GOP base. You see which one got the nod.
Of course, the situation was different from today. McCain was trailing in the polls when he made that decision, and choosing Pawlenty as a running-mate would be a very different calculation from choosing him as a presidential nominee. Yet there are nevertheless some lessons to be drawn from McCain’s choice, which highlight Pawlenty’s weaknesses as a candidate: Yes, his ability to appeal to all factions within the conservative movement might help Pawlenty in the “invisible primary,” where party elites attempt to set the field and tip the scales for their favorites. These elites seem to be hoping that if they choose someone who appeals to all sides, and cuts a profile as close to “generic” GOP candidate as possible, they will have a winning hand next year. But are the conservative activists who actually dominate primary and caucus events really in the mood for a safe, unexciting choice? Or are Tea Partiers in the mood for a crusade, led by someone who can energize them as Palin was meant to do in 2008? Will a political movement that perceives itself as “taking the country back” from socialists and baby-killers really find its general in a man so unremarkable that he was described in a sympathetic home-state magazine profile as “The Cipher”?
This problem goes deeper than the usual questions about Pawlenty’s “charisma.” He is, by most accounts, a personable guy who can connect well with all sorts of people, a quality that will serve him well in one-on-one retail campaigning. But the real issue is whether he is “big” enough for the role of the next Ronald Reagan—is he a redemptive figure who seems like he can lead this most exceptional country back onto the path of righteousness? This is an unusual requirement, but to conservative primary voters, who are long aggrieved by what they perceive as endless betrayals at the hands of Republican politicians, it is an essential quality that Pawlenty hasn’t definitely shown he possesses.
You get the sense that Pawlenty and his handlers understand this problem, and are working on it in ways that may or may not succeed. His recent habit of shouting his way through speeches (as wonderfully explained by Jesse Zwick for TNR) appears to be in part motivated by the need to show activists that he is “one of us,” and as outraged by the ongoing destruction of America from within as anyone. And then there are his amazing Web ads—part Transformers, part Triumph of the Will—which are designed to convey the sense that Pawlenty’s campaign is part of a gripping national drama comparable to the country’s other great turning points. These ads have become hilarious fodder for Stephen Colbert:
But they have the very serious goal of elevating Pawlenty from the non-offensive “safe choice” of party insiders into a sort of Maximum Leader for whom conservatives will snake-dance to the polls next year in order to vindicate their long-frustrated ambitions.
This gambit, handled as it is now, exposes Pawlenty not only to liberal ridicule, but to the risk that he will be perceived in the end as a Wizard of Oz—a nebbish pretending to be a world-historical figure via the use of smoke and mirrors and amplification. Yes, in theory, he could win the nomination much as McCain did, through a demolition derby that incrementally eliminates his opponents. But it’s clear that he still has a lot of very tricky rebranding to do—and for your typical Iowa Caucus-goer, conscious of his or her responsibility to choose or reject candidates, and yearning now more than ever for a leader who is larger than life, T-Paw’s modest “generic” charms may simply not be enough.
Ed Kilgore is a special correspondent for The New Republic.
11 comments
Pawlenty is a weak candidate, but he does not have the fatal flaws of all the others. He stands the best chance against Obama in the general, but it will be near impossible for him to win the primaries. Of the top tier candidates though, who would not be easy pickins for Obama? Gingrich? Barbour? Palin? Romney? Huckabee? Not exactly Murderer's Row. All five of those would end up with 43% of the popular vote. Pawlenty will break 45%, but he will not be able to win the general as long as there is no unforeseen disaster between now and Nov 2012. The economy is slowly mending and if unemployment gets below 8% on election day, Obama wins easily.
- nayyer_ali
March 25, 2011 at 12:35am
I am going to go way out on a limb and suggest that only Gingrich and Huckabee have a shot at the Republican nomination. Palin is anathema to "the elite," Romney to "the base." Choosing either would outrage the other side of that divide. Barbour is nobody, as is Pawlenty. There are two who can "lead a crusade" and are not utterly implausible (to Republicans -- they are all nuts and implausible as far as I am concerned) -- Gingrich and Huckabee. Huckabee has the advantages of having attempted it once and appealing more to the base as it exists today because he has little historical baggage. Gingrich the advantage of being somewhat more acceptable in the mainstream due to the high office he has already held (wholly undeserved acceptability, again in my opinion), but he has baggage that doesn't necessarily sit well with a base that wants a broom. As between Gingrich and Huckabee, it is a matter of whether the elite or the base prevails, but as they are the two at the margin of that delicate balance, they are the two with a shot. Pawlenty will be a useful stooge for both. If you forced me to put money on it, I would say the base wins out over the elite in this cycle and Huckabee gets the nod.
- roidubouloi
March 25, 2011 at 12:48pm
I should add that the elite will accept Huckabee because they don't really think they have a shot at Obama and Huckabee, by appealing to the base, will minimize their losses. It would actually be the smarter choice for them given that they don't have a shot. If some disaster happens that makes Obama look vulnerable, we can expect some new candidates to emerge as the elite contemplates blowing a real chance at winning by nominating one of these clown princes. Who might that be? Christie? Jeb? Beats me. I have a limited ability to put myself inside the heads of Republicans.
- roidubouloi
March 25, 2011 at 12:53pm
Sounds like a perfect candidate for Vice President.
- skahn
March 25, 2011 at 1:49pm
He is the Republican Dukakis -- at least assuming that Mitch Daniels doesn't run, since his lack of height would make him even closer to Dukakis than Pawlenty. But it would be fun to see a campaign between Obama and an empty suit.
- wildboy
March 25, 2011 at 1:54pm
I haven't read the source for the statement that the McCain presidential campaign actually engaged in a formal assessment of Tim Pawlenty for Vice President before selecting Sarah Palin. However, I've read material that indicates that candidate McCain made the choice of Sarah Palin for Vice President very quickly without any effort to review any other potential candidate. Maybe the assessment of Tim Pawlenty is unfinished.
- Doug12
March 25, 2011 at 2:58pm
If Haley Barbour wins the South Carolina primary he will be the GOP nominee. Don't under-estimate him. He knows everyone that matters in the GOP and most of them owe him a favor. And he will raise money like nobody's business.
- DC Spence
March 25, 2011 at 6:38pm
Triumph of the Will - perhaps next we'll hear that Republican rallies are akin to the Nuremberg affairs attended by stormtroopers. This Triumph of the Will analogy reflects the uber-partisanship lexicon in common parlance by adherents of both parties today.
- thom14
March 25, 2011 at 6:45pm
How exactly does winning South Carolina get Barbour the nomination?
- roidubouloi
March 25, 2011 at 8:51pm
As a resident if Minnesota, it has been interesting to see Tim Pawlenty trend to the right, slowly but steadily, over the years. In the last two years or so of his last term as governor it was evident that he was making choices based on positioning himself as a national candidate, rather than on the needs of our state. I think that he has left Minnesota in a sorry state, and the national press needs to take a hard look at this. In addition, how about taking a hard look at his alleged conservative principles- they have clearly evolved as he has increasingly pandered to the extreme partisans of the Republican party. What a phony!
- rsethre
March 26, 2011 at 9:23am
In all the political theatre of the past two and a half years what has been lost is a realization of just how skillful and politically deft Obama has been. The extraordinarily effective way that our president has handled both health care ( a particularly bedeviling issue) and now the winds of change sweeping through Arab lands will become more apparent as we approach 2012. I do dread all the noise leading up to the election and I think that the nomination process could further damage the Republican party's ability to ever be a responsible governing party again whether they win the 2012 elections or not.
- paskunac
March 28, 2011 at 6:52am