Among the likely winners of the Republican race (yes, that excludes Sarah Palin and Rand Paul), none have yet come even close to sewing up the nomination for president. That’s a good thing.
I’m a firm believer in the worth of long campaign seasons. Democrat or Republican partisans alone are a minority of the electorate. The crucible requires potential candidates to demonstrate their ability to craft a national coalition of their political party that will reach beyond to enough leaners (otherwise often called Independents).
The long campaign crucible, also, demonstrates the potential candidates’ ability to present themself and to encourage positive feelings with articulate, persuasive, sound proposals, while avoiding seriously alienating leaners or committing major gaffes that raise crippling doubts among the open-minded (not just opponent scalphunters).
At this point, there’s enough good to say about the leading Republican contenders to believe they’d all make fine vice-presidents, but as yet none have earned the higher expectation.
All will be in good stead as a better alternative than President Obama. However, that is not enough, for me anyway.
Not only for their election but for a successful administration and a course that lasts beyond, the candidates must convince that they will steer the US away from a financial abyss onto a safer and saner path, and that they will do what’s necessary to recover and protect US standing abroad while avoiding unnecessary quagmires.
There are differences of degree, but the leading Republicans have demonstrated seriousness on most economic issues, and proven it during their careers.
Where there are more serious, and dangerous, differences is in foreign policy. None have a record of experience in managing foreign policy or defense matters. That is not crippling since there is such a deep Republican and professional bench available to them. That bench will only be as good as the direction they are given. So, the leaning among some toward avoidance of confrontations abroad and to reduced defense expenditures that may appeal to the weary will also weaken the US ability to meet challenges and encourage other nations to ally with the US.
Among the front-runners, only former Minnesota governor Tim Pawlenty and current Minnesota congresswoman Michelle Bachmann have staked out unequivocal stands for a firm foreign policy, a strong defense, and the will to engage our friends and discourage our enemies.
It seems to me, that former governor Pawlenty, with more governing experience and a less flaming demeanor, is the stronger among the two. Bachmann, though, has shown she has been underestimated as to her depth and presentation. Still, in what will be a bare-knuckle personal attack strategy surely to come from Democrats, Bachmann may be more easily tarnished than Pawlenty. On the other hand, Pawlenty’s calm presentations have not excited the base, who crave public repudiation, even humiliation, of the leftist and extreme Democrats in Congress and the White House.
The base is important to cementing the nomination. The leaners are important to winning the election.
That leaves administering. Former governor Pawlenty, previously a state legislator, ably administered Minnesota. Bachmann has been a legislator. There is a difference between legislating or governing a state and administering and leading the nation. Administering and leading the nation requires higher political and inter-personal skills, with a firmer backbone to pursue reforms and programs.
Bachmann as a legislator has firmly stood against liberal Democrat programs. Whether she has the enlarged skills to enlist wider support is a valid question. Pawlenty is more a political pragmatic than Bachmann, he actually in the blue-state Minnesota governor's chair and dealing with a Democrat legislature. Whether in the White House he has the spine and intestinal fortitude to win over waffling legislators and overcome opposition at the same time as not seriously compromising objectives is a valid question that he must address in his campaign.
The extent of reforms and course-corrections that must be undertaken by a new Republican president will test him or her in the most severe ways. Further, to be more accepted and lasting, they must be convincingly presented and well managed. Just for comparison, his lack of executive skills and political acumen have so weakened President Obama’s dramatic changes in domestic and foreign policies that they would be critically enfeebled even if his policies made more sense or were more constructive. President Obama’s in-your-face and extra-legal tactics may have gotten him some pyrrhic victories that will not last.
A brief note on other potential Republican candidates: Mitt Romney has a superb managerial record, in and outside government, and a great ability to understand and explain complex economic issues. He lacks a firm-rooted governing principle for much more limited government that is required in these times, and has waffled on foreign and defense policy. Congressman Paul Ryan is brilliant and focused on the correct domestic agenda, and likely has good foreign policy instincts that haven’t been emphasized, but lacks the national prominence this time. And, there are no real men on white horses.
So, long story short, thankfully we have a long campaign season ahead of us to test and select the best prospect not only for 2012 but beyond.
