Reflections on US Republican Primary Season 2012

It has become more than obvious that Mitt Romney will become the Republican candidate for election in 2012. Even though Ron Paul remains in the race he has no hope. Obama v. Romney is on for November

It’s good to reflect on the primary process though and see its potential effects. I’d start by saying that I’m an avid fan of US politics (see previous blogs) and have tried to follow things closely. Here are a few thoughts:

1.       Candidates – it is well worth a moment’s reflection to look at those involved before we go any further.

Firstly, those who didn’t run – Sarah Palin, Chris Christie (Gov. NJ) and Mitch Daniels (Gov. IN) being three for me who really standout by not standing out. Palin had no chance beyond her Tea Party faction but either Governor could have really got a campaign together. Part of me sees them tactically waiting for their opportunity against a ‘new’ Democrat candidate in 2016

What about those who did run? Herman Cain pulled out due to a sex scandal. Jon Huntsman pulled out due to a poor result in New Hampshire (though was still on the ballot in Ohio later on). Michele Bachman received good early endorsements but couldn’t keep the pace. Rick Perry was destroyed by his famous ‘oops’ on TV during a GOP debate. Rick Santorum proved strong but his perceived strong focus on social issues to the expense of wider policy initiatives scuppered his chances with Northern states. Newt Gingrich kept himself going by the sheer force of his self-will but eventually had to pull out when the money ceased flowing down the creek has ego-dingy wanted to flow. Ron Paul stays in but has lost the race and has policies that alienate him from vast numbers of Republican supporters (e.g. pull out of all foreign wars, return to the gold standard). Finally we get to Romney, who has in essence secured the nomination and ridden storms of controversy over Super PACs (see point 3), wealth, religion, employment background and perceived ‘flip-flops’ on policy ideas.

They’re certainly a diverse group of people!

2.       Money  – no surprise, money stands out as a major part  of the campaign. Millions of dollars have been thrown into the race to be the GOP candidate and low and behold the richest candidate has (all-but) won the nomination.

Now money hasn’t always been key in all the individual campaigns. For example, Rick Santorum won Iowa (after a recount) having campaigned from a pick-up truck and stopped in all 99 counties. Newt Gingrich preferred to get into debt (apparently $2m when he pulled out) than to let money get in the way of his ambition

But it still remains the case that the richest candidate won, and therefore that money is a massive influence on campaigning. In short, more money leads to more ads and billboards leads to more publicity and a higher likelihood of people supporting you. Obama won in 2008 and had campaign funding of over twice what his opponent Sen. John McCain had in the general election and was so well supported that he didn’t sign up for public funding for either the primaries or the general election, in contrast to McCain and serious contender for the nomination, John Edwards
A few figures for this primary cycle: Mitt Romney raised $56m in 2011, far above any other candidate. He has now raised $88m to run his campaign, again more than any other candidate for the nomination. His Super PAC has raised a further $43m. Massive figures, but it is a massive position to run for

3.       Super PACs – appearing out of Supreme Court decisions in the 1970s, Political Action Committees (and the recent birth of Super PACs) have radically changed election financing in the US. I won’t go into PACs (though you may remember their most famous appearance in the 2004 election with ‘Swift Boats and POWs for Truth’, itself not a PAC but supported by a PAC to attack John Kerry’s military service) but Super PACs now allow candidates to in essence raise extra funds for their campaigns and flout campaign finance law. No, stop Mark, that’s naughty. They allow supporters of a particular candidate to raise money separate from that candidates campaign to show their lack of support for another candidate. For example, ‘Romney’s Super PAC’ (in effect a misnomer) is called ‘Restore Our Future’ and has put remarkable amounts of money(see above) into attacking the other GOP primary candidates. Super PACs look to play a crucial role in the coming presidential election

4.       Religion – it being the USA, religion has played a role in the campaign and will continue to do so. Aside from the fact that many Americans still think Obama is a Muslim (the LA Times reported in March that half of Alabama voters still think this) God has and will continue to feature in the election.

There are two ways this has been made clear so far. Most prominent so far has been the attacks on Romney’s Mormon faith being a cult. It is worth saying that I think that this depiction is accurate, along with it being non-Christian, though I cannot see how in any way that affects his ability to run the country

The other major sign of the prominence of religion has been made most clearly in Rick Santorum’s campaign and his focus on social issues. He made his stance on abortion clear and attacked Obamacare using his religious faith. And, unlike in the UK, where religion is private and rarely talked about in the public square (something I don’t agree with), religion is prominent in the UK. Bush used it, Obama used it (until being tied to Jeremiah Wright proved uncomfortable) and will use it again, Romney will use it.

The US is a diverse country and rightly embraces all faiths and no faith. I would never want people to see my focus on Christianity and Mormonism as a denial of that, but simply write about those faiths because those are the faiths represented in the current election. Clearly, when it comes to America, God gets votes

5.       Sniping – SO many attack ads and campaigning! It seems that ruining your fellow candidates character was one of the major tactics in this campaigning. I know that that is part of politics but it seems to me like the Republicans have slightly shot themselves in the foot for two reasons (or is that 2 feet – not sure). Firstly, whichever candidate wins (i.e. Romney!), there is a tonne of stuff already dug up on the candidate by people on his own side for Obama and his team to go over and exploit. Their hard work has been done for them. Secondly, the depiction of being a candidate who runs negative ads to win votes will not help your appeal – it appears to show you have no good policies so just stab other people in the back. Negative ads may help you win votes, but they help the opposition as well

6.       Policies – my final reflection on the primary process has been how little has been said on policies. Every candidate has had their plan or idea to deal with the economy (Herman Cain dropped out just in time so that I didn’t have to destroy my eardrums over constantly hearing about his 9-9-9 policy) and every candidate constantly sniped at their fellow GOP (see above). But very few have given any thought to the wider ideas and policies they would bring in. Two examples – on the wider view, the Republican WILL go in with Congress in their favour. Currently there are 242 Republican House members (a majority) and 47 Senators (not a majority but enough to block laws), and that could easily change in the elections to come in November and the new congress to start in January 2013. With all this, there has been no clear outline of what a candidate will do from the GOP if they get to the White House. None of them have laid out clear policies they could bring in across the board (defence, agriculture, pensions, energy, foreign policy, the economy) as their way to change the country. The nearest to do it is Ron Paul, but his policies are unworkable idealism. Others have made comments and recommended ideas, but none of them have produced what we in the UK would see as a manifesto for election.  The GOP and Romney need to show what they will do with strong position in the legislature and with a wide view of policy.
On a narrow view the GOP opposes Obamacare but has never produced a clear policy they would bring in to replace it. No candidate has had a clear healthcare policy that they could immediately bring into bill form. Romney is in a particularly tough situation as he brought in a similar bill (though not Obamacare in miniature, as some seem to think) when he was Governor of Massachusetts. Many in his own party will not trust any policy he brings in because of fears it’s a similar bill to Obamacare (which is, of course, socialism). Again, a tough area where it is hard to rally a whole party/popular support around one particular position. As a side-note I would say that Obama has a similar problem with gay marriage as the majority of two of his support bases (blacks and 20-somethings) have directly opposite views on the matter

So there we go, reflections on the primaries and some thoughts to the future

Debate warmly encouraged