POLITICS DECEMBER 23, 2011
-
Read Later
READ LATERAvailable only to subscribers. SUBSCRIBE TODAY
-
Listen
ARTICLE AUDIO
- Font Size

The 2012 “invisible primary” is looking likely to end just how and where it began: with Republican ideologues anxiously looking to Iowa for signs of an electable “true conservative” alternative to Mitt Romney. Depending on whom you ask, they have found no such candidate, or have found too many of them. In either case, despite their fevered hopes the First-in-the-Nation Caucus is not likely to play its intended role as an all-important arbiter where ideological squishes are disciplined or destroyed and the faithful find their champion. Indeed, from the perspective of a conservative movement hoping to consolidate its control over the GOP once and for all and make 2012 the beginning of the end for the New Deal, Iowa has been a big failure.
The sad spectacle of the FAMiLY Leader organization—whose board, after administering a controversial pledge document and then holding a candidate forum, could not reach agreement on an endorsement—is something of a microcosm of the Right’s failure to separate the sheep from the goats throughout the invisible primary. While FAMiLY Leader chieftains Bob Vander Plaats and Chuck Hurley eventually supplied “personal” endorsements for Rick Santorum, Vander Plaats has been subsequently begging Santorum supporters to contribute money to enable him to actually campaign for his candidate—a sign of the gesture’s probable futility. Given the fact that they are appealing to largely the same constituencies and are hardly flush with cash, neither Santorum nor Michele Bachmann seem very likely to win a big “ticket out of Iowa.” And Rick Perry, once the favorite of the Christian Right, is still holding onto an impressive war chest that will likely sustain him, but he’s got precious little else going for him other than the hope that he, rather than Gingrich, will survive through New Hampshire to make a late appeal to southerners. For his part, Newt has not been haunting the highways and byways of Iowa all that obsessively either; the big news for his campaign this week has been its opening of an all-volunteer headquarters in Sioux City, just his second outpost in the entire state.
Meanwhile, neither Mitt Romney nor Ron Paul seems likely to be influenced by the results in Iowa at all. While it’s true that Romney has moved decisively to the right in order to make himself minimally acceptable to today’s conservatives, he’s done so out of deference to the primary process as a whole—not the glare of publicity and pressure on the Iowa campaign trail, which he has largely ignored until very, very recently. Indeed, the main Romney footprint in the state has been via the nasty attack ads on Newt Gingrich launched by the “Restore the Future” super-PAC backing Romney. And while Ron Paul has done well in the target-rich Iowa environment of a low-turnout caucus (lots of home-schoolers and lots of eager college students), it’s not as though he’s doing much of anything he hasn’t been doing for many years. Moreover, it is certain that Paul’s campaign will continue right up until the convention no matter how he does in Iowa.
So the caucuses themselves will probably only cull one candidate from the field, no more than the Iowa Straw Poll back in August that ended Tim Pawlenty’s campaign. As Jonathan Bernstein has recently explained, barring a real upset Iowa’s influence over the nominating contest may well be reduced to spin: Did this or that candidate beat expectations, or set the table for success down the road? That is not a meaningless role to play, but after absorbing so many months of candidate and media attention, it’s hardly ideal from the point of view of Iowa triumphalists who consider their strange contest the epitome of deliberative democracy.
And for the high-riding right wing of the Republican Party—be they denoted as Tea Partiers, the Christian Right, or “constitutional conservatives”—it’s been a long and arguably pointless trip. Unable to use the unique leverage of Iowa to elevate Tim or Michele or Rick or Herman or Newt or the other Rick, they are now looking at genuinely long odds for denying the nomination to the man they do not want, Mitt Romney, who is more and more looking like the Richard Nixon of the early twenty-first century: the lowest common denominator of a political party in which leadership is in painfully short supply.
Ed Kilgore is a special correspondent for The New Republic.
21 comments
Who are the Santorum "supporters" that could give money to Bob Vander Plaats? There are hardly enough Santorum supporters to give money to Santorum.
- wildboy
December 23, 2011 at 8:58am
Ed, good to have you back. Good analysis. It's nice to be reminded from time to time that the GOP's goal really IS revoking the New Deal. They've been doing it so stealthily, a piece at a time, that it can be hard to realize how important that is. They want to return us to those halcyon days of the Roaring 20's, when Corporations were REAL Corporations, the Free-Market was the REAL Free-Market, the 50 year Business Cycle was just how things were done, and if the little people got hurt and starved and got kicked out of their houses, well that just kept the cost of labor low. And the Great Depression? Well, that was simply not supposed to happen. That it did, and that they're trying to return us to those conditions, must be kept in mind.
- AllanL5
December 23, 2011 at 9:00am
For once, I agree with Galton. Mittens is our most-likely next Prez. BHO and the Repubs have maneuvered to put off the coming more-severe economic crisis until next summer.. At which point the next Prez is ABO (Anybody But Obama).
- drofnats1
December 23, 2011 at 9:03am
It's been a strange campaign year in Iowa - no presidential noise at all from the Democrats, for obvious reasons, but also a whole lot less of the smarmy retail meet and greet politicing by Republicans than one would expect in a wide open field. Until this weekend, the small town near here that usually sees every presidential candidate in the JC or Elks meeting hall a couple of times pre-caucus, hadn't even had half of the candidates once. Given we're a ten days from caucus and everyone is in full holiday retreat, I don't think that'll change all that much. All of which is fine by me - I never learned much by shaking hands with a pol, and the Q & A is just as good on TV as it is in person - but I wonder if we really aren't seeing the twilight of Iowa's first mover status in presidential politics.
- IowaBeauty
December 23, 2011 at 9:10am
Dro read the article so intently, he doesn't even know who wrote it.
- GSpinks
December 23, 2011 at 9:37am
Ugh. Cannot stand that man. That picture alone could be used as an emetic.
- Tristan
December 23, 2011 at 9:55am
good catch gspinks :) Galston would have written about Iowa without conflating "social conservatives" with "fiscal conservatives" into one vague miasma seeking "electable “true conservative” alternative to Mitt Romney". Only a liberal echo chamber sees Romney as "electable". Romney is the worst of Bush43 and Obama44, and generates less enthusiasm. Kilgore can not even bother to do ten minutes of research to know that Rick Perry enthused the TEA Party in 2010, which is NOT the same as whatever Kilgore thinks he means by the "Christian Right". Iowa Evangelical Christians who continue to think abortion is EVIL (their words, not mine) also think Rick Perry is EVIL for 1) endorsing Giuliani in 2008, and 2) being a Methodist who personally believes abortion should be legal in those states who choose to make it legal, for cases of rape, incest, and (the truly slippery slope), the life of the mother. Here in near-pagan western Massachusetts, Rick Perry is "PURE EVIL" (direct quote from a random exchange) because Texas has the death penalty. Ok, I did not ask that stranger if she was a pagan or an Evangelical Christian who was lost trying to find the new Christian Arts College (funded by Evangelical Christians) about thirty miles northeast of where we spoke, but she was eyes ablaze and, when I asked if the death penalty was her #1 issue, she said yes. Ed Kilgore has been inside a bubble for too long, or is just lazy, secretly funded by Romney...
- K2K
December 23, 2011 at 10:09am
GSpinks. Good catch on Galston who is often interchangeable with Kilgore in writing Blue Dog rationales. Doesn't change the main point, however. BHO is borderline electable at 8.5-9% unemployment and 1.5% GNP growth three years into his presidency. At 9.5-11%unemployment and 0.5% to negative growth, he's toast. It's then ABO time. The US is no different than Spain or Hungary in terms of voters tossing out whoever is in charge at the top when the economy collapses. And that US economic scenario has a better than 50/50 chance without a collapse of the EU or Chinese economy. The former is a better than 50/50 chance-- the latter probably 10-25%. There are times when Cassandra's and Churchill's are correct.
- drofnats1
December 23, 2011 at 7:12pm
Well the paid Iranian blogger can not stand Santorum. A true Christian, a true supporter of Israel. A mortal enemy of Muslim backstabbers.. Paid Iranian bloggers philosophy of living in our free country. I bet this paid Iranian blogger kisses the photos of Ahmadenijad and Ayatollah Khameini daily. he has to he is their stooge.
- JAIMECHUCH
December 24, 2011 at 10:27am
Jamie can be counted on to provide what are probably some of the most idiotic posts ever seen on this site, and this is no exception. Forgetting for a moment that he insists, for reasons that pass all understanding, that I am a (sigh) "paid Iranian blogger", there is this witless support for Santorum, perhaps the most personally unlikable man to run for president in my lifetime. Jaime, I am a Christian, and believe me, Santorum is no "true Christian". Those who knew him best in the Senate have said, many times, that the man's bigotry (something you've very familiar with as well, Jamie) is boundless. Santorum is one of those Christians who display what is, in my opinion, one of the very lowest and most vile traits of those who profess to our faith: the whole-hearted embracing of those biblical passages which support one's own hateful and bigoted beliefs. For centuries passages like "Let His blood be upon us and our children" were twisted and molded to support the most disgusting anti-semitic beliefs and practices. Ditto Paul's "slaves adhere to your masters" as justification for slavery. In our time we see this continued, with language from both the Old and New Testaments (but not the gospel; Jesus was silent on this particular issue, and I think for good reason) which represented the hate and bigotry of the time directed against homosexuals. Make no mistake, Jaime. Santorum advocated denial of constitutional rights allowed heterosexual people because he's a bigot, and for him the bible is a tool to support that bigotry. And like your virulent, pathetic hatred of all things muslim (you insist they are all backstabbers, liars, murderers, etc). He is delighted, just delighted, that he can find in the bible those words he feels support his own hate, and that is what poisons his alleged faith. As for support of Israel, yes it is a good thing when presidential hopefuls express solidarity with Israel and her people, and unequivocal support for her defense. But guess what you buffoon, this is pretty standard language for all presidential candidates, and double so for candidates in the gop. Nothing any of these people say gives you or anyone else even a hint as to how they will act when they're faced not with vague sentiments... "we will do everything necessary to support and defend Israel..." but with significantly more complicated issues, like supporting vs not supporting more settlements in the west bank, expanding civil rights for arabs in the territories, etc. And what constituted "support" in your feeble mind, anyway? It seems in your narrow little understanding, only two things are important: being pro-Israel, and supporting any decision that "Israel" makes,. But the arguments you make are juvenile, Jaime. The United States can be a firm supporter of Israel and still believe that a particular policy is not in her best interest. I don't altogether agree with Obama's lack of support for the building initiatives in E Jerusalem, but to conclude he is somehow "against" Israel because of this, and despite the US siding with Israel against the Palestinian push for immediate statehood, is silly and baseless. Others on here (Noga comes to mind) offer well thought out criticisms of the president, some of which I agree with and some I don't. But what you offer is the shallow, uneducated, knee-jerk daffiness typically seen on far-right websites dedicated to all things Obama-hating. Your line of thought seems to go like this: Obama, if he supported Israel, would simply endorse, carte-blanche, any decision made by Israel's president. So if Bibi wants to expand settlements in E Jerusalem, Obama must give full-throated support or he's somehow an anti-semetic Israel hater. But if next week Bibi were to step down and Tzipi Livni were to become Prime Minister and declare as her first decision the ending of all building activity, Obama then needs to declare the US in support of THAT decision as the right one. And a week later, if Livni were to be replaced by Liebermann, and the housing were to start up again, then once more Obama must support the increased housing. You don't see how idiotic this is, Jaime? Are you really so ignorant and stubborn you don't see that this line of thinking is simply daft? Many many people on this site who love Israel with all their hearts insist, time and again, that as our greatest friend we will always support Israel, but friends can sometimes disagree. But not in the twisted world of Jaime, who's lack of high-order thinking makes it impossible to see reason or admit he's a fool. Anyway, feel free to keep making a fool out of yourself by repeating ad nauseum the ridiculous "iranian paid blogger" thing you pulled out of your ass one day, or with statements like the one a few days back where you said anyone who criticized Peretz's posts should be kicked off TNR. Please, don't hesitate in making sure everyone who reads these blogs knows what a douchbag you really are. But I urge to you take caution when declaring a man like Santorum of being a "true Christian". He, like you, is simply a hateful little bigot. There is still hope for him to become a good man, just as I know there's still hope for you, Jaime. All it takes is that crucial first step in putting aside the hate. Can you do it? I'll pray for you, Jaime.
- Tristan
December 24, 2011 at 2:15pm
Jaime, make sure you read and respond to the bet I'd like to make with you. Details can be found on the "Iraq is a mess but leaving is right call" thread. Please take the bet, Jaime.
- Tristan
December 24, 2011 at 2:34pm
Tristan, very good rebuttal. PS can somebody please tell me how to collect a paycheck either as a paid Zionist blogger or a paid Iranian blogger? Personally I have never been accused of being an Iranian blogger but have often been accused of getting a paycheck from The Great Octopus Itself and thus far have yet to see a penny; I am miffed.
- Sophia
December 24, 2011 at 2:38pm
admire your attempt at reason, Tristan. the rest of us know to ignore those who are irrational, even when they attack us personally. most of them eventually find an exit ramp. you wrote "...I don't altogether agree with Obama's lack of support for the building initiatives in E Jerusalem..." The reasin this was a huge betrayal by Obama was that he deliberately turned it into a public diplomatic rift with PM Netanyahu (and his governing coalition). At the time, March 2010, it was a thinly disguised attempt at forcing regime change in favor of Tzipi Livni. The only thing 'east' about "East" Jerusalem is that it is east of the 1949 armistice lines negotiated with Lebanon, Syria, Iraq, and Jordan and Egypt. Lebanon , Syria, and Iraq are still in a frozen state of war with Israel. No U.S. president before Obama EVER made apartments in Ramat Shlomo and Gilo a public diplomatic rift with Israel. enough.
- K2K
December 24, 2011 at 2:39pm
hello Sophia! I do not think ANYONE gets paid to be a blogger except the RonPaulbots who mercifully have not swarmed TNR.com :)
- K2K
December 24, 2011 at 2:42pm
Good response, K2K, good points. And Sophia, you're doll. Forget the octopus... I'm splitting my first check from the mad mullahs with you.
- Tristan
December 24, 2011 at 3:51pm
My wife was dying of cancer. They told me will pray for her. She died. That I hate Muslims? What a canard. I point out those that want to wipe out Israel and the Jews are Muslim groups, vocal at it, and active at it, Iran,Hezbollah, Hamas, Fatah/Palestinian Authority. Palestinians get a daily dose of Israel Jew hatred, including children's cartoons. Am I the only one pointing this out. You bet. One thing you can count on the Jews, Israel, never have a policy of hatred. But now we defend ourselves from enemies. By the way Israel's 20% population are Arabs mostly Muslim with equal rights as Israeli citizens, and members in Knesset ,parliament. So our paid Iranian blogger is wrong. For him to admit it will have to wait for the three wise men to come on Jan 6 and visit little Baby Jesus, the future Jewish carpenter. In 6 hours will arrive Santa, but I have no chimney. I have only the truth. That sets me free. So challenge with the truth
- JAIMECHUCH
December 24, 2011 at 6:34pm
The paid Iranian blogger has been joined by two more stooges Sophia and K2K. They never realized the Muslim groups spitting hatred towards Israel, towards the Jews. But again what can you expect from stooges. That is why the paid Iranian blogger goes haywire. Oh my God how I love the true Christian Rick Santorum, a true American.
- JAIMECHUCH
December 24, 2011 at 6:47pm
Jaime, my deepest condolences for the loss of your wife. I'm sure she was a wonderful woman. Let's make this the end of the ad hominem attacks ok... what do you say? Care to start the new year with a tabula rasa? No doubt the rest of the TNR bloggers are tired of our back and forth which tends to bury substantive argument and coherent message under a fog of white noise. So, in the spirit of Christmas and new year's rebirth, let's bury the hatchet. Your turn.
- Tristan
December 24, 2011 at 9:00pm
Let us bury the hatchet in the spirit of Hanucka, Christmas, and hope that the good Muslims will Provide peace, prosperity , commerce and industry to their people. You can turn over the world with human energy worth 1.5 billion humans. Peace to all. Thank you Tristan.
- JAIMECHUCH
December 25, 2011 at 12:19pm
Peace to you as well, Jaime, my friend.
- Tristan
December 25, 2011 at 1:34pm
dro: "At 9.5-11%unemployment and 0.5% to negative growth, he's toast." Ah, such certitude almost a full year out from the actual contest. And despite current polls showing that Obama is nothing like scorched bread against any of the Republican contenders. And despite the fact that Obama's campaign hasn't really gotten started, and is still competitive if not leading in many battleground states. I can only hope for a greater wariness in predictions should Obama win a second term, which I think right now is the more likely outcome (referring to the election--I make no assumption as to future predictive wariness).
- dsimon
December 26, 2011 at 4:56pm