U.S. Republicans Have to Expunge the 'Radicalism' and Choose Mitt Romney
"Romney is certainly no dream
candidate. He has changed his positions as often as his ties. But at least one
thing is clear: The man has a head on his shoulders. He has proven himself as
governor of Massachusetts as well as in the private sector - and he's much too
sober and analytical to succumb to radicalism. If Republicans stick to their
radicalism, they have no chance in the election. … In the end the voters want a builder, not a
destroyer."
Former Massachussetts Governor Mitt Romney: Is his lack of charisma an assett in a party filled with outsized - and some would say radical - personlities?
U.S. Republicans have good
reason to charge into this presidential election year with renewed zeal.
Despite all the stimulus spending, unemployment remains stubbornly over eight
percent, the housing market continues to suffer, and the economy remains weak.
At the same time, a massive black hole has appeared in household budgets, and the
debts are piling up. In the 2010 congressional elections, the opposition sent
the Democrats a clear warning.
One could argue that
President Barack Obama will prove to be his own undoing in 2012, no matter who
his opponent is.
The Republicans are openly
suggesting this - courage has turned to hubris. The result: They have managed
to make themselves even more unpopular than Obama. Their presidential
candidates continuously up on one another with right-wing populist rhetoric. Given
their bizarre field of candidates, many moderate voters have likely already
turned away in horror.
Even in the Congress, the
party has squandered any goodwill. Many Representatives have misconstrued the
protest vote in 2010 as a mandate for radical opposition, à la the Tea
Party movement - with the result that Obama's poll numbers hit an updraft at
the end of the year. For the Republicans, it was a wasted year.
There is still hope for the
party in November, as long as it returns as quickly as possible to reason and
moderation. For the primaries which begin January 3, that means that party
members have to hurry up and choose Mitt Romney, putting an end to their
current phase of right-wing defiance.
Romney is certainly no dream
candidate. He has changed his positions as often as his ties. But at least one
thing is clear: The man has a head on his shoulders. He has proven himself as governor
of Massachusetts as well as in the private sector - and he's much too sober and
analytical to succumb to radicalism.
Charisma is something else
Romney lacks. But perhaps it's better that way for his party. Because colorful
characters with outsized egos and little experience - from media mogul Donald
Trump, who considered a candidacy in early summer, to former pizza entrepreneur
Herman Cain, who shone in the polls during the fall - have put the party in a
bad light. The same can be said for Ron Paul, who is channeling the anger of
the Tea Party movement in Iowa. Paul wants to abolish several cabinet-level agencies
as well as the Federal Reserve, and he wants to terminate American membership
in international organizations. But in the end the voters want a builder, not a
destroyer.
Part 2: A Decisive Year
for America's Conservatives
When it comes to anger, it's
always the same. At some point it all burns itself out. Eventually the economy
will recover, the people will grow tired of demonstrating and they will return
to their everyday lives. The Tea Party movement has played an important role.
They have rung the alarm and outlined the problem, demanding to know what high
deficits and debt would portend for future generations in America. They held a
mirror up to both parties. What the country needs now are experts who can run
through the possible solutions - and politicians capable of building
majorities.
Many have already gotten the
message. Take for example the so-called "Gang of Six" - three
Republicans and three Democrats who sought a bipartisan solution to the budget
dispute in the Senate. But these voices get drowned out by the shouts of fringe
fundamentalists on the right and the left. In particular, stubborn Tea Party
representatives who arrived in Congress in 2010 have failed in their march
through the U.S. institutional muck. Amid their blind, fundamentalist
opposition, they forgot that the very same Founding Fathers that they so often
invoke had to compromise.
Romney is often accused of
being a management consultant type with no convictions. That could be a boon
for the Republicans, as long as they don't drive him into a right-wing corner
he can't escape. The longer the primary campaign lasts, the greater the danger.
On the other hand, the sooner the real campaign begins, the sooner Romney can
debate Obama on the proper relationship between the state and the economy, how
much military spending the country can afford, and how the United States can
secure its future economic and scientific competitiveness.
That could be an interesting
debate between two highly educated and intelligent adversaries. Whether that
will help Republicans to victory remains to be seen. Because in the end it may
turn out that the ideological divide between the two candidates is not as deep
as some hard-liners like to think. But Republicans must run that risk if they
want to be taken seriously in the long term.
2012 is a pivotal year for
America's conservatives. They must show that can not only beat their chests,
but offer real solutions. Otherwise they will hurt themselves, regardless of
how good or bad Obama's standing is come November.
