JONATHAN COHN JANUARY 4, 2012
-
Read Later
READ LATERAvailable only to subscribers. SUBSCRIBE TODAY
-
Listen
ARTICLE AUDIO
- Font Size
The Iowa caucuses were full of last-minute drama: Rick Santorum and Mitt Romney were vying for the lead all night. At 1:50 a.m., Santorum was ahead by just four votes, with only a single precinct's tally still outstanding. Forty-five minutes later, Romney was back in front by eight votes, thanks to some guidance from a pair of precinct captains named Edith and Carolyn got the vote right. (If you were watching CNN in the wee hours of Wednesday morning, you'll know what I'm talking about.)
That's how it ended: With Romney edging out Santorum by eight votes. But the Iowa caucuses don’t award delegates and they aren’t winner-take-all, rendering the distinction between first and second irrelevant. For all intents and purposes, the two men tied, with the libertarian Ron Paul running not far behind.
I don't think this is great news for Romney. My colleague Alec MacGillis, who has been reporting from Iowa, interprets these results as a blow to the presumptive front-runner, who oozed confidence in the last few days but who, in percentage terms, performed slightly worse than he did four years ago. Of course, I also think my colleague Ed Kilgore is right when he predicts that Romney will end up as the nominee anyway.
Still, there’s another storyline out of Iowa, one that was clear even before the caucus meetings were underway. And it's about substance, not the horse-race. For all of its crazy unpredictability, the Republican campaign to date has featured one constant: A lack of serious ideological separation among the major candidates. All of them have taken up position on the right. And by that I mean the far right.
Santorum has been there for a long time, particularly on social issues: On abortion, gay rights, and myriad other issues he’s done more than taken conservative positions. He’s advocated for them, loudly, with strident arguments. Santorum’s record on economic issues isn’t as extreme, as critics like Erick Erickson have pointed out: Santorum supported the Bush Administration on No Child Left Behind and the creation of a Medicare drug benefit, for example. But in this campaign, Santorum been unambiguous about his desire to slash federal spending, reduce taxes, and repeal the Affordable Care Act.
Romney has the less extreme pedigree, having governed as a moderate in Republican and famously signed into law a health care plan that became a model for the plan President Obama and the Democrats are bringing to the country as a whole. But that’s ancient history now: At least on domestic policy, Romney has taken positions every bit as extreme as Santorum: Remember, Romney embraced the original Paul Ryan budget, which proposed to end Medicare as we know it. And Romney was among the candidates who, during an early debate, said he would reject an deficit reduction deal in which tax increases accounted for a mere ten percent of the total budget savings.
Yes, Romney has been cagey in his pronouncements: When he endorsed the Ryan budget approach, for example, he did so through primarily through campaign surrogates – allowing him to shore up support among conservatives (and diminish the support for conservatives) without producing quotes that will make for easy advertising material during the general election. And just today, I saw Dan Balz, senior political analyst of the Washington Post, wondering whether Romney – or any Republican nominee, for that matter – would be able to emerge from the primaries without debilitating conservative baggage.
I think we know the answer to that question. With sometimes exceptions for Paul and Jon Huntsman, all of the Republican candidates have taken positions calling for a massive restructuring of the federal budget, one that would decimate the welfare state and give huge tax breaks to the rich. They’re also calling for sweeping reductions in regulation and reorientation of the federal judiciary to the right.
Maybe the candidates are sincere about these positions and maybe they are just pandering. It really doesn’t matter. As George Packer noted in the New Yorker, candidates can’t just drop these kind of promises or disown this kind of rhetoric. Conservative voters won’t let them forget what they said. The rest of us shouldn’t either.
Update: I added the final results, as well as the reference to Edith and Carolyn.
14 comments
Well. Regardless, this is bad news for the US.
- Sophia
January 4, 2012 at 1:07am
Those whom the gods would destroy they first make mad.
- amidut
January 4, 2012 at 6:45am
amidut and Sophia. You are correct in ways you may not appreciate. The Repub nominee-probably Mittens-- is almost certain to be our next President. Voters vote their pocketbooks, and the best bet by far is that the economy will be heading south next summer and unemployment greater than 9%. And BHO will rightfully receive much of the blame for what he didn't do--- produce an economic recovery given four years in office. It will not matter that it would have been worse without the inadequate stimulus and that Repub policies would have made it worse. It will be ABO time: Anybody BUT Obama. No matter how mad the gods have made the opposition [Google Hungary.] whose ascent to power will be bad news for the US for 2013-2016. [Madness while in power is essential to the tale.] Get used to it-- and plan how to rescue the Dems and the US. That will take a Prez who understands and consistently articulates Progressive policies and Keynesian economics. That has not been, is not, and will NOT be BHO. In fact, BHO as Prez 2013-2016 stands a good chance of being worse bad news for the US than a Repub in office for those years. Dems have not pushed hard to counter BH0's madness of compromise and political ineptitude-- and they will now suffer for it.
- drofnats1
January 4, 2012 at 8:03am
Seems to me it is pretty much like '08. If Huckabee was running, he would have won again because he's a more solid candidate, more likable & less scary than the current candidates on the right.
- s.trabka@frontier.com-old
January 4, 2012 at 8:44am
Who won last night? Big Blue!
- rayward
January 4, 2012 at 9:18am
so drofnats, if you had the courage of your convictions pledge your support for Romney now (in order to bring about your future supposed liberal utopia when some unnamed and virtuous Naderesque figure rescues the US and the world). I was in the states for vacation talking to a lot of conservative friends and relatives, virtually everyone I know is lukewarm to Romney, I suspect his being Mormon will kill him with religious Catholics (at least it does with my family) and couple that with evangelicals being against him I am starting to suspect he needs a full blown depression to win (which he won't get, drofnats yearning for it notwithstanding)
- blackton
January 4, 2012 at 10:00am
Hail to the Victors Valiant!
- roidubouloi
January 4, 2012 at 10:16am
I just saw Bachmann's concession speech. She finished 6th in her home state, but that doesn't deter her determination to repeal "Obamacare" and Dodd-Frank, two measures that have made the American people safer. She, however, thinks those laws have put us in a "socialist" prison. She didn't win in Iowa, but her ideas did. The Catholic Santorum is even more of a religious fanatic than she is. As an ex-Catholic, I'm disgusted with the Church's embrace of of Far Right politics. It certainly is no surprise--the Vatican was a strong supporter of the Nazis behind the scenes--but the Church used to (maybe still does) reach out to the poor. Santorum will certainly get votes from wingnut Republicans in South Carolina. Tying in Iowa and winning S.C. could neutralize a loss in N.H. And the Catholic Church has deep pockets. Look out for Slick Rick!
- magboy47.
January 4, 2012 at 12:06pm
Santorum may have little chance of winning the Republican nomination, but he could position himself as a king maker or breaker. What's amazing is that not only is he opposed to abortion, he also vows to repeal all federal funding for contraception.
- amidut
January 4, 2012 at 1:16pm
When the least conservative candidate wins, I'd call that a victory for moderation--even if he's still too conservative for me.
- polcereal
January 4, 2012 at 2:07pm
My first impractical plan is Romney and Huntsman. My second impractical plan is Romney and Santorum. My third impractical plan is Superman and Batman. If all else fails, we will go with King Kong and Godzilla. Though perhaps more in keeping with this journal would be The Golem and Nosferatu. Heck. To really scare the F* out of everybody, I will unleash the TNR ITALIC MONSTER. Here she comes! The world will never be the same.
- skahn
January 4, 2012 at 10:31pm
Just testing.
- skahn
January 4, 2012 at 10:32pm
Drat. Foiled again in my plot to destroy the world.
- skahn
January 4, 2012 at 10:33pm
The Far Right, according to "liberals" like George Packer consists of those who believe that Western democracy is morally superior to Islamofascism, and that Israeli democracy is superior to Arab neo-Nazism. Doesn't that remind us of something: that something being the support of many (granted not all) left-liberals for the genocidal regimes of Josef Djughashvili and Mao-Tse-Tung? Scratch a liberal and underneath is a totalitarian sympathizer. Vide Tom Friedman, and countless others before him.
- bulbman1066
January 4, 2012 at 11:33pm