Republican Dynamics

Why do the Republicans seem to be in such a quandary this primary season, with none of their candidates a good fit for the party? Each seems to have major drawbacks and is mistrusted and severely criticized by many within the GOP itself. The answer lies in the nature of the Republican coalition, a coalition often likened to a stool with three legs. The three legs that hold up the structure are economic conservatives, defense conservatives and social conservatives. None of the Republican candidates running for president are solid conservatives in all three legs, and that makes each of them anathema to at least one segment of the party's coalition.

Ronald Reagan assembled the modern Republican coalition in his successful run for the White House in 1980. In doing so he overturned the New Deal Democratic coalition that had dominated American politics since its establishment by Franklin Roosevelt in 1932. The Reagan realignment fractured the New Deal coalition by appealing to the religious right. He was able to draw fundamentalist religious working class voters to his side on social issues, undermining their previous support for the Democrats which had hinged on their economic interests. Democrats who have stayed in their party's fold have never understood this. How could people vote against their own economic interests, they wonder. Well, for the obvious reason: they are social conservatives first and economic populists second. The religious/social conservatives feel this set of issues is more important to them than economic issues are.

What do the three groups want? Economic conservatives equate laissez-faire economic policies with freedom. They also believe government should be smaller and less intrusive. They believe tax cuts, as a general rule, are always good, and government regulations are more or less always bad. And they believe in supply-side economics, the idea that more money at the top means more investment which will drive the economy and provide jobs. These views are most popular with the business community.

Defense conservatives are most worried about geopolitics and external threats. They see the world as a dangerous place inhabited by rogues and enemies who cannot be reasoned with and must be met primarily with force. No amount of military power is ever really enough. They want bigger government when it comes to defense issues. Recalcitrant foreigners must be brought into line. Defense neoconservatives even believe that military force ought to be used to pre-emptively remake the world into a safer place, and that the application of U.S. military power can accomplish this. This group doesn't really believe in smaller government. They want bigger government, especially when it comes to defense issues and anything related to them.

Social conservatives believe that traditional, patriarchal, authority-based morality is what holds society together, and they fear that it is weakening. The authority they refer to is usually the fundamentalist evangelical interpretation of Christian scripture. They are suspicious of the separation of church and state, seeing it as the vehicle by which other competing versions of morality, or no morality at all, will triumph in society. This will lead to anarchy and sin, in their view. They often feel that government ought to be in the business of enforcing their view of religion and a moral society on the nation, for society's own good, because of their belief that theirs is the only true moral and religious conception, and because they feel that their faith commands them to spread these views. Social conservatives don't necessarily want smaller government either. They want less government action in some matters and more in others when it comes to support for their issues.

So how do the Republican presidential contenders measure up? Mitt Romney subscribes to economic conservatism, though he is criticized for allowing some government fees to go up in Massachusetts. He campaigns as a defense conservative too. But he took some tolerant social views in his state, de-emphasizing abortion and once campaigning as a defender of gay rights. As a Republican candidate in perhaps the nation's most liberal state, such stances were probably necessary to get elected. But the price is that social conservatives don't trust him. Compromise on somebody else's issues, they feel, not ours.

John McCain is a strong defense conservative. But he has shown a willingness to compromise on the other two legs. He opposed the Bush tax cuts, for instance, and economic conservatives will not let him forget it. Despite a consistent pro-life position, he is also attacked for supporting comprehensive immigration reform and fundraising reform: stances that social conservatives despise as coddling criminals on the one hand and restricting their right to promote their divinely ordained views on the other. Many social conservative websites are currently full of "Stop McCain!" injunctions.

Mike Huckabee is the great favorite of strong social conservatives. He is a former fundamentalist pastor who supports their issues and speaks their language, advocating creationism and saying that the Constitution should follow the Bible. But his comment that President Bush's foreign policies smack of "arrogance" and "a bunker mentality" has raised doubts among defense conservatives. Yet this is nothing compared to the horror in which he is held by economic conservatives. As Governor of Arkansas Huckabee was not averse to hiking taxes when he felt there was need for it. His frequent populist rhetoric about tailoring economic policy to the needs of the working class wins him additional loyalty among blue collar social conservatives but has spurred untrammelled enmity among business leaders.

Rudy Giuliani is best known as a defense conservative. He also runs as an economic conservative. But his credentials are unacceptable to social conservatives. His acceptance of abortion rights and former advocacy of gun control make him persona non grata with that group.

Finally, Ron Paul. He is certainly his own case. His libertarian views are popular with economic conservatives and his social opinions are welcome to social conservatives. But his foreign affairs position against the Iraq War makes him an enemy to defense conservatives.

In sum, there is no candidate in the Republican field who satisfies all three legs of the coalition triad. They have all alienated at least one important constituency group. Whoever is nominated will be faced with a difficult task in uniting the necessary elements behind him for victory in November. One dire possibility for the GOP is that depending on who the Republican nominee is, these dynamics may provide the Democrats with an opportunity to win back social conservatives on economic issues.