No There Anywhere
Mark Steyn points out that the problem with the Republican presidential candidates is that there is so much diversity in their positions:
Rudy Giuliani was a brilliant can-do executive who transformed the fortunes of what was supposedly one of the most ungovernable cities in the nation. But on guns, abortion and almost every other social issue he's anathema to much of the party. Mike Huckabee is an impeccable social conservative but, fiscally speaking, favors big-government solutions with big-government price tags. Ron Paul has a long track record of sustained philosophically coherent support for small government but he's running as a neo-isolationist on war and foreign policy. John McCain believes in assertive American global leadership but he believes just as strongly in constitutional abominations like McCain-Feingold.
So if you're a pro-gun anti-abortion tough-on-crime victory-in-Iraq small-government Republican the 2008 selection is a tough call. Mitt Romney, the candidate whose (current) policies least offend the most people, happens to be a Mormon, which, if the media are to be believed, poses certain obstacles for elements of the Christian right.
This is why the Republican race is so wide-open, of course. There is so much diversity in the positions of the various candidates that it is hard to see clearly who is really ahead where - and why. No matter who wins the nomination in the end, some element of the base is going to be unhappy. Steyn also points out that the exact opposite problem exists for the Democrats: the candidates there are virtually indistinguishable:
Over on the Democratic side, meanwhile, they've got a woman, a black, a Hispanic, a preening metrosexual with an angled nape – and they all think exactly the same. They remind me of "The Johnny Mathis Christmas Album," which Columbia used to re-release every year in a different sleeve: same old songs, new cover. When your ideas are identical, there's not a lot to argue about except biography. Last week, asked about his experience in foreign relations, Barack Obama noted that his father was Kenyan, and he'd been at grade school in Indonesia. "Probably the strongest experience I have in foreign relations," he said, "is the fact I spent four years overseas when I was a child in Southeast Asia." When it comes to foreign relations, he has more of them on his Christmas card list than Hillary or Haircut Boy.
That leaves us with absurd arguments on that side of the political divide. The debates degenerate into charge-countercharge over silly things. But there is no diversity in views. The candidates quibble over who has more experience when none of the experience the are sniping over really matters. They are in virtual lockstep over the big items. Steyn asks a question:
Let me ask a question of my Democrat friends: What does John Edwards really believe on Iraq? I mean, really? To pose the question is to answer it: There's no there there. In the Dem debates, the only fellow who knows what he believes and says it out loud is Dennis Kucinich. Otherwise, all is pandering and calculation. The Democratic Party could use some seriously fresh thinking on any number of issues – abortion, entitlements, racial preferences – but the base doesn't want to hear, and no viable candidate is man enough (even Hillary) to stick it to 'em. I disagree profoundly with McCain and Giuliani, but there's something admirable about watching them run in explicit opposition to significant chunks of their base and standing their ground. Their message is: This is who I am. Take it or leave it.
Both parties have strengths and weaknesses as a result of all this. There are huge differences in policy ideas on the Republican side, virtually guaranteeing that some base elements will be unhappy no matter who wins the nomination. But there is also an integrity there, the candidates are true to themselves because they have those strong policy beliefs. On the Democratic side there is a disheartening sameness, a cookie-cutter interchangeability between the candidates. That also leaves all of them prone to the same weaknesses. Hence they all waffle to some degree on many of the big issues that come up - like licenses for illegal immigration.
In the end, the voters will have to choose. I think integrity rings better with the average voter than opportunism.
By martian, Saturday, 24 November , 2007 @ 11:27 am
“I think integrity rings better with the average voter than opportunism.” - I wish I was able to believe that, Gaius, I really do. It would be a good thing for our country. Unfortunately, when I look at that statement, I remember that William Jefferson Clinton was elected and then re-elected President by the citizens of our great nation. Then I look at the fact that one of the big pluses that the Hillary camp keeps touting is that if you elect her you get him back, too. They consider that a major electability factor for her. Is there any person that emodies opportunism over integrity more than Slick Willie? Is there any other couple that could be better poster children for opportunism than Bill and Hillary Clinton? And yet there is a very real possibility that Hillary could be the next POTUS. I am very much afraid that the average voter wouldn’t recognize integrity if it walked up and bit him. However, I desperately hope that you are right, Gaius. I really, really do!