Kenny Farquharson: Romney just the best of a bad lot
THE greatest political show on Earth rolls into town on Tuesday as Republicans in Iowa hold their caucus to select the least worst candidate capable of carrying the fight to Barack Obama in the US presidential election in November. Surveying the field of candidates is a pretty grim business but that’s life (and politics) for you.
Look: there’s Rick Santorum, the former Senator from Pennsylvania, who believes legalising gay marriage will lead to widespread and acceptable “man on dog action”. There’s Michele Bachmann, a kind of Minnesotan Sarah Palin only without the charm. There’s Ron Paul, who would put the United States back on the gold standard and who often speaks in the manner of your eccentric uncle forever banging on about the miracles of his freshly invented parsnip-powered chicken-plucking machine.
Then there’s Newt Gingrich, the former Speaker who carried on an adulterous affair with a junior staffer at the same time as he led the crazed movement to impeach Bill Clinton for carrying on an adulterous affair with a junior staffer (and lying about it). Gingrich, a stupid person’s idea of a clever person, imagines himself some combination of Churchill and Cincinnatus, only with added intelligence and gravitas. All this before even considering Herman Cain, the pizza magnate who flickered briefly and bafflingly before being undone by multiple allegations of sexual shenanigans.
None of these candidates can win the nomination but each, like non- runners such as Palin and, most ludicrously of all, Donald Trump, were part of a Carnival of Grotesques that made this pre-primary season the most entertaining in recent memory. All good things come to an end and so, alas, must this circus.
The campaign has been defined by one constant: the Republican party does not much want to nominate Mitt Romney but, however reluctantly, is most probably going to do so anyway. Whatever else he is, Romney appears to be a certified grown-up and this is enough to distinguish him from most of his rivals. His most potent challengers, Rick Perry and Jon Huntsman, have been crippled by incompetence (Perry) or the inconvenient fact of having worked for Obama (Huntsman who, until last year, served as Ambassador to China).
That leaves Romney as the last and only realistic option. As Sherlock Holmes deduced: “Once you eliminate the impossible, whatever remains, no matter how improbable, must be the truth.” Each of Romney’s rivals has, at different stages, enjoyed “front- runner” status; each has been revealed as an impossible imposter. Romney, meanwhile, has run his own race: slick, polished, assured and, above all, plausible.
Obama’s weakness means this election is not comparable to those of 1964 or 1972, as some assert. LBJ and Nixon cruised to landslide victories in part because the opposition chose candidates – Barry Goldwater and George McGovern – who pleased the extremes of the Republican and Democratic parties but appalled Middle America. The 2012 contest, rather, is akin to the 2004 Democratic primary. A popular bumper sticker summed-up that campaign: “Dated [Howard] Dean; Married [John] Kerry”. This contest is little different. Kerry was a compromise candidate chosen because he seemed the most “electable”. Romney offers something similar. Like pornography, “Presidential quality” is the kind of thing you recognise when you see it and this, in the end, is the only thing that really matters. It is why the Republican establishment in Washington is overwhelmingly backing Romney.
He excites few people, stirs little passion and has to work hard to remind voters he is actually some kind of human being. This is a weakness, to be sure, but one more than compensated for by another simple, killing truth: Romney seems competent. You might think this a low bar to clear but it is one that has already felled most of the field. That, of course, is the point of the primary process and in this respect the winnowing of the field of credible candidates is all but complete before a single state has voted.
Much of Romney’s campaign is brazenly dishonest but, in the present climate, this matters little. Indeed, the febrile (to be polite) mood of the conservative movement right now pretty much demands dishonesty from its representatives and champions. Obama has not, despite Romney’s claims to the contrary, travelled the globe on an “apology tour”; nor does the president actually want to remodel the US along European social democratic lines.
Romney’s campaign, however, seeks to “restore” the United States. This is not, in its guts, a political critique of Obama’s presidency so much as it is part of an ongoing culture war. Obama, in this view, is in some fashion questionably American. He should be viewed as a usurper, not as a properly legitimate president. This is not an especially attractive type of politics.
Many of Romney’s backers know this is nonsense but accept Romney must peddle this guff to reassure grass-roots conservatives and the white men who are now by far the most important part of the Republican coalition. The reassuring crumb is this: Romney’s pandering is just a fraud and he knows that we know and he knows this.
Iowa is less important for Romney than for his rivals; he has New Hampshire upon which to fall back. They do not. At this stage the race is on to discover who will be the anti-Romney with the greatest staying power. But staying power ought not to be confused with appeal. Romney stirs few hearts but, in the end, Republicans will settle for Mitt. He will do because he is, above all else, the man most likely to defeat Barack Obama.
n INTERNATIONAL: PAGE 17
Email to a friend
Print this page- Family mourn death of Glasgow ‘fight’ schoolboy
- Rangers takeover: Duff & Phelps threaten legal action against BBC
- Today’s youth not fit to be employed, says car firm Arnold Clark
- Rangers administration: Fans fear Duff & Phelps claims could scare off Green
- Rangers takeover: triple penalty punishment enough, says Johnston
- Alistair Darling leads ‘No to independence’ fight over tea and biscuits
- Scottish independence: SNP flip-flops over Nato
- Scottish Independence: SNP ‘won’t be Yes campaign’s only voice’
- Scottish independence: Alex Salmond’s pledge to sign up 1m voters
- Today’s youth not fit to be employed, says car firm Arnold Clark
Looking for...
Featured advertisers
Jobs
Search for a job
Motors
Search for a car
Property
Search for a house
Weather for Edinburgh
Sunday 27 May 2012
Today
Sunny
Temperature: 10 C to 22 C
Wind Speed: 12 mph
Wind direction: North east
Tomorrow
Sunny
Temperature: 9 C to 21 C
Wind Speed: 12 mph
Wind direction: North east
Comments
There are 2 comments to this article
Page 1 of 1
Le juge
Sunday, January 1, 2012 at 06:06 PMInteresting take on the front runner (Ron Paul). You dismissed his policies with a disdainful comment that he wishes to return America to the gold standard. Lots of americans think the federal reserve needs to be taken back into state control. Do you think this policy of linking money to assets is a ludicrous policy? This latest poll shows Paul at 70% approval for economic policies http:concord-nh.patch.comarticlesron-paul-dominates-patch-polls. Incidentally the poll comes from New Hampshire where you state "Iowa is less important for Romney than for his rivals; he has New Hampshire upon which to fall back." You Claim ” Each of Romney’s rivals has, at different stages, enjoyed “front- runner” status; each has been revealed as an impossible imposter (sic). I would suggest that Paul is less of an impostor than any of the others. I think Paul is the only credible challenger to Obama and thats why your analysis is so one-sided.
samcoldstream
Sunday, January 1, 2012 at 03:02 PMThe Republican Party shambles could well result in Obama being re-elected by default. Such an outcome will either finish the Democrats for decades to come or, if Obama should turn extremely lucky, bury the Republicans?
Page 1 of 1
Your view
Please sign in to be able to comment on this story.