POLITICS AUGUST 12, 2011
-
Read Later
READ LATERAvailable only to subscribers. SUBSCRIBE TODAY
-
Listen
ARTICLE AUDIO
- Font Size

With enough political reporters in Iowa to cover both the Lindbergh kidnapping and the O.J. Simpson trial, Thursday night’s GOP debate had to be a defining moment, a game-changer so epic that it will shimmer in memory like Ronald Reagan. Yeah, sure.
Even though Tim Pawlenty and Michele Bachmann provided the expected fireworks, while Jon Huntsman made his muted entrance from stage center, the two-hour Fox News face-off mostly served as a reminder that we have only just begun. This was not a debate that triggered mass conversions to a single candidate. In fact, it strains credulity to believe that many additional Iowa Republicans will spontaneously change their weekend plans to rush to Ames for Saturday’s over-hyped straw poll. With Rick Perry and maybe the id-propelled Sarah Palin waiting in the wings, the underlying message from Thursday night may well have been that eight isn’t enough.
But Mitt Romney, now routinely described as the front-runner, could take satisfaction because he survived another debate without a GOP challenger laying a glove on him. Little that Romney said was memorable, and his opening line about the president’s debt-ceiling deal bordered on the weird: “I’m not going to eat Barack Obama’s dog food, all right.” But Romney, with his graying temples and his deep voice, excels at looking and sounding presidential. And if you believe that such superficialities do not matter, check in with Dukakis.
Romney’s public record may be the mother of all re-inventions, but the standard attack lines are growing stale, partly because they were all used during the 2008 campaign. Is there a new put-down that any Republican can come up with about Romney’s passage of a health-care mandate in Massachusetts? (Pawlenty, by the way, finally used his Obamney-care line, a debate too late). Asked about the closing of companies like American Pad and Paper (385 jobs lost) when he headed Bain Capital, Romney replied with an oft-rehearsed line, “When I was at Bain Capital, we invested in about 100 different companies. Not all of them worked. I know there are some people in Washington [who] don’t understand how the free economy works.”
Michele Bachmann, for her part, illustrated the perils of being a shooting-star candidate—sometimes you give off just a few sparks rather than a full pyrotechnic display. Even as Pawlenty—who has been exasperated with her since he was governor and Bachmann was an ideologically inflexible state senator—launched the predictable attack lines, the congresswoman seemed over-matched in responding. One moment she is likening Pawlenty to Obama (not an easy comparison to accept), the next moment she is crowing about her courageous advocacy work in championing the Light Bulb Freedom of Choice Act. (The careening stock market was not mentioned Thursday night, but the light bulb crusade received full illumination).
Watching Bachmann, there was a sense that, in just the second GOP debate, she was already resorting to her greatest-hits repertoire. Of course, Bachmann remains a formidable contender in Iowa, but there were small hints that she may have already taken her candidacy as far as it can go.
What is hard to decipher is how one of the most dramatic moments in the debate played with Iowa Republicans. Conservative journalist Byron York, one of the moderators, asked Bachmann point blank, “As president, would you be submissive to your husband?” By now, I am sure the blogs are full of vigorous feminist argument about whether this question was sexist or just Bachmann-esque. In fairness, York cited Bachmann’s use of the Biblical passage, “Wives, you are to be submissive to your husbands,” as the justification for a question that would never, ever be asked of Hillary Clinton.
Bachmann, glowering through a smile that could combat global warming, responded with one of her trademark inversions of the English language: “What submission means to us, if that’s what your question is, it means respect.” At that moment, I almost expected Bachmann to summon Aretha Franklin as a character witness to her marriage.
Pawlenty had a strong enough debate performance to reassure his skittish fund-raisers. Even though the Iowa Straw Poll on Saturday is not a valid predictor of the actual Iowa caucuses, he has staked the future of his candidacy on a strong showing in Ames. If Bachmann beats him in Ames (or even if, God forbid, he finishes beyond Ron Paul), he will have to convince his money men that he remains a solid investment. While Thursday night did not, by itself, eliminate the Pawlenty-in-plenty-of-trouble story line, it did give him a new argument to use with his deep-pocketed supporters.
Huntsman, for all the ballyhoo that surrounded his entry into the race, came onto the debate on little cat feet. He mixed moments of standard-issue Republican pandering (no new taxes ever) with moments of against-the-grain courage (sticking to his support of civil unions while his rivals were burbling over a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage). While such conviction politics will appeal to Republican liberals (both of them), there were times when Huntsman seemed as out-of-step with the Republican base as Ron Paul did with his shouted denunciations of American military policy.
Newt Gingrich is always interesting—whether it was offering an enraptured paean to bring Six Sigma methodologies to the federal government or attacking Chris Wallace for his gotcha questions. Rick Santorum and Herman Cain also debated—and are purportedly running for president.
Walter Shapiro is a special correspondent for The New Republic. Follow him on Twitter at @waltershapiroPD.
4 comments
American Exceptionalism, Political Power and the Holy Spirit The 2012 Republican Presidential Primary Candidates One of the trends I find "exceptional" about the USA today is the number of religious sects and cults participating directly in the electoral process. The leading contender for the Republican nomination for President, Gov. Mitt Romney, is a Mormon, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (LDS Church), a religion considered heretical by many mainstream Christians like nearly all mainstream Protestant Churches and the Catholic Church. Gov. Rick Perry of Texas began his Presidential campaign by organizing a “Christian only” evangelical, and "dominionist" prayer meeting called “The Response: a call to prayer for a nation in crisis.” “Dominionism” is the belief that holds the Holy Bible as dominant over laws made by man. For an examination of the relationship between Gov. Perry and the controversial “New Apostolic Reformation” movement, see the Texas Observer’s article “Rick Perry’s Army of God” http://www.texasobserver.org/cover-story/rick-perrys-army-of-god. “The Response” was a gathering of the different tribes of American fundamentalism – Christian Zionists, prayer warriors, apostolic and prophetic types, etc. – under the umbrella of political and spiritual revival, see Rachael Maddow’s special report: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26315908//vp/44098787#44098787 Like Governor Perry, Congresswoman Michele Bachmann espouses a "dominionist" religious perspective and spent her student years in law school studying the "dominionist" approach to society, law and government, see John Chait’s article in the New Republic: http://www.tnr.com/blog/jonathan-chait/90014/michelle-bachmanns-worldview. Gov. Sarah Palin is a member of a "The Wasilla Assembly of God." The “Wasilla Assembly” is a member of the Assemblies of God, a Pentecostal Christian denomination founded in 1914, in the United States. The ‘Four Core Beliefs’ of the Assemblies of God are Salvation, Baptism in the Holy Spirit, Divine Healing and the Second Coming of Christ. A dramatic insight into Pentecostalism is found in the 1997 film, The Apostle written, directed and starring Robert Duvall, as a charismatic “Pentecostal” preacher. Pentecostals are known to “speak in tongues:” see a clip from Duvall’s movie, The Apostle: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1FwMu9WW_bg. The Apostle’s main character” Sonny” is what social scientists once politely referred to as “Other Protestants.” Sonny was actually a preacher in the traditional holiness movement, distinct from the Pentecostal movement, which believes that the baptism in the Holy Spirit involves speaking in tongues. Many of the early Pentecostals were from the holiness movement, and to this day many "classical Pentecostals" maintain much of holiness doctrine and many of its devotional practices, according to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holiness_movement. Modern “dominionism” is largely unknown to most Americans. The list of unknown schismatic sects, cults, groups, exotic beliefs and churches, which the contenders for the Republican nomination belong to or are in agreement with, is "exceptional." The religious fringe, it seems, has become the Protestant mainstream. Today’s Republicans could be rebranded the “Christian Republican Party.” The center core of Protestant faith has migrated from “Liberal Protestantism” to an entrepreneurial-style, evangelist and fundamentalist faith, which votes heavily on the Republican Row. It was once believed that such sects originated mainly among the religiously neglected poor. Clearly, this is now no longer the case. It has been argued by social scientists that insecurity, differential status and anxiety characterize these religious movements. The effects of the Great Recession and the affects of geographic relocation and workplace displacement have contributed to a sense of anxiety and anomie among the American middle-class. Ernst Troeltsch, the major historian of sectarian religion, has characterized the psychological appeal of fundamentalist religious sects in a way that might as appropriately be applied to extremist politics. A direct connection between the social roots of political and religious extremism has been observed in a number of countries. It was observed by the American sociologist S. M. Lipset, as early as the 1960s that, “the point here is that rigid fundamentalism and dogmatism are linked to the same underlying characteristics, attitudes, and predispositions which find another outlet in allegiance to extremist political movements.” Many western democracies have “Christian Democratic Parties,” the US, because it is “exceptional,” has a “Christian Republican Party.” The candidates for the Republican nomination have made their religious views of scripture known, by degrees. To discover what these candidates deeply and sincerely believe requires the investigative work of a "large metropolitan newspaper." The ascendancy of the “nouveau fundamentalist Protestant elite” to high leadership positions in the Republican Party needs to be understood as a serious step toward a profound redefinition of church and state in America. The ascendancy of hard-core chronic “know-nothing-ism” and “anti-intellectualism,” so eloquently written about by Columbia historian Richard Hofstadter, and sectarian belief systems, is undoubtedly "exceptional" for a modern mass political party with governmental responsibilities. While it is argued that Europe is experiencing a “crisis of faith,” the United States is experiencing a revivalism parallel with the Second Great Awakening of the 1800s. The decline of mainstream Methodists, Presbyterians, Congregationalists and Episcopalians as forces affecting the direction of the Republican Party, has been statistically significant, and the rise of “Other Protestants,” and sects, has marked a realignment of voting patterns and political commitment. Is it possible to image Presidential candidate John F. Kennedy organizing a 30,000 person “Catholics only” prayer service as a campaign launch? One of the famous quotes from Kennedy’s address to the Greater Houston Ministerial Association, during the 1960 national election, was, “I am not the Catholic candidate for President. I am the Democratic Party’s candidate for President who also happens to be a Catholic. I do not speak for my Church on public matters — and the Church does not speak for me.”
- LawrenceGulotta
August 12, 2011 at 10:52am
Gee Walter, why don't you just let Vin Weber and the rest of the Pawlenty brain trust write your articles for you?
- Lundell
August 12, 2011 at 11:47am
When one begins to feel optimistic about the American future, he then sees Republican selection of six astoundingly unqualified presidential candidates and two straining to reach mediocrity. Hello Pessimist!
- Weston
August 12, 2011 at 2:51pm
What's pathetic is the ridiculously overloaded coverage of these political midgets by the fawning, mewling, lickspittle toadies that collectively comprise "the media". Enough already! Yes, we're going to get one of these twerps as the next president of the United States of America, since the big bucks that run this country(club) for the benefit of the wealthy and privileged have pre-ordained it; but do we have to have it rammed down our throats with every waking moment by the broadcast and most of the print news sources (and I useg that last word advisedly)? It's like living under Christian Stalinism, where one party is all.
- bonsaibush
August 12, 2011 at 4:56pm