Republican ideological excess and disintegration were in clear view in Iowa. New Hampshire suggested that this would likely lead to a weakened Romney candidacy. Now, the South Carolina results raise doubts about Romney’s inevitability. This was widely discussed yesterday among media pundits of various political stripes. But I think that more importantly the results highlight the sad state of the political culture of the right. They also enrich my judgment of how the general election will look.
The competing candidates represented disintegrating components of the right. Santorum is the value conservative, appealing to the working class, what remains of the Reagan Democrats. Ron Paul is the libertarian anti-statist, as the purist appealing especially to the young. Romney is the capitalist, the Republican of big business, once identified as moderate or even liberal (Romney’s father), now identified unsteadily as conservative. And Newt Gingrich is the Republican of resentment, more expressive of anger than of a clear reasoned position.
Gingrich, the demagogue, prevailed. He not so obliquely is the candidate of racist attack, as he rails against Obama as “the food stamp president.” He is the anti-elitist, denouncing the liberal media, and the Washington and New York establishments, proclaiming himself to be “the Reagan populist conservative.” Yet, Reagan created his coalition through the force of his positive personality, while Gingrich, in South Carolina, put together his primary victory with his personal negativity.
In response to my last post on the Republican primary season, Michael Corey challenged me, and Deliberately Considered readers, to take seriously Romney’s speech after he won the New Hampshire primary, to understand what Romney was presenting as the alternative to Obama’s policies. I think he misunderstood me. I recognize that Romney is presenting alternatives, as are Paul and Santorum. I welcome posts and responses explaining and supporting these positions. Wall Street, libertarian and value conservatives do have positive, but largely incompatible views. I judged, though, that the only thing that holds the Republicans together now is the emotional rejection of Obama. This was confirmed in South Carolina in the Gingrich victory.
I doubt Gingrich will be the Republican nominee, but he will have a huge effect on the 2012 general election, nonetheless. If he is the candidate, we will observe the power and limits of the grandiose, of the ideological, of the demagogic. If he is not the candidate, Romney, Rick Santorum, or perhaps someone not yet in the race, perhaps even as Gary Alan Fine hopes chosen in a brokered convention, will have to pay tribute to the demagogue and the forces he represents. And I am convinced the results are likely to be defeat for the Republicans. The election will be between fear and the common sense, and I am convinced that common sense will prevail. Call me an optimist.
Romney and Gingrich are attacking each other for their respective faults. When I see two people without any moral compass doing the right thing, I almost start believing in democracy again 😉
Newt Gingrich in the South Carolina primary interests me for slightly different reasons. His approach raises the issues of memory and rhetorical slight of hand techniques. Some of us remember Gingrich while he served in office. It is very difficult for me to separate what he says now from what he actually has done over time. Fortunately for Gingrich, memory tends to be selective and is as much a reflection of the way we would like things to have been, rather than a closer approximation of what actually has transpired. During the debate and campaigning process, it is very difficult for voters to separate facts from fiction. Gingrich according to one of his former wives believes what he says is much more important than what he actually does or has done. Gingrich has positioned himself as an authentic Conservative, and the most electable candidate. Both of these may be weak and perhaps misleading assertions.The rhetorical tricky that he has used effectively is in one respect similar to a magician’s slight of hand; divert attention from what is actually happening, and create an illusion about what is actually happening. The practice of propaganda requires that deceit be interspersed with facts and other assertions that are defendable. It is this soup that makes propaganda very dangerous and very effective. When the case is weak, propagandists frequently appeal to emotions rather than reason, and to assert their positions passionately, and emotionally rather than rationally. Effective propaganda relies on the use of misleading binaries to establish distorted associations and meanings. Gingrich seems to have mastered these techniques. It will be interesting to see if during the primary process, larger numbers of voters can figure this out. Unfortunately, these techniques are not unique to Gingrich, and practitioners can be found across the political spectrum.