Critics have accused the Republican electorate in recent years of putting a higher premium on ideological fervor than on policy knowledge.
But the success of former House Speaker Newt Gingrich and former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney in the current presidential primary fight undercuts this charge.
Conservative political figures such as former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin and 2010 U.S. Senate candidates Sharron Angle of Nevada and Christine O’Donnell of Delaware attracted passionate followers.
This fan base came to their defense whenever they were criticized for inarticulate statements or moments that suggested they didn’t have a strong grasp of the issues.
In return, liberals and moderate Republicans such as David Frum responded by making a broader charge that conservatism, fueled by talk radio and Fox News, was becoming anti-intellectual and was driven by pure political id.
But the current Republican primary tells a much different story. It’s a story of an electorate that is placing a high premium on candidates’ ability to appear knowledgeable and articulate on the issues, giving these factors an even higher level of importance than ideological consistency.
In her column endorsing Romney, Coulter argued, “Romney will be the first Republican presidential nominee since Ronald Reagan who can talk.”
When Texas Gov. Rick Perry entered the race in August, he quickly vaulted to the top of the pack. But after a string of flubs and deer-in-the-headlights moments during the debates, he dropped like a rock.
Perry attempted to play the anti-establishment card to contain the damage done by his debate performances. He acknowledged that debates weren’t his “strong suit,” and insisted that, “What Americans are interested in is not the best debater, not the slickest politician.”
But the Republican electorate, thus far, has been unforgiving.
Herman Cain was the beneficiary of Perry’s collapse, as his support surged in the early fall, but has since started to decline. As he’s come under more scrutiny, he’s stumbled on questions about abortion, Libya, and China – among other issues.
It’s true that Perry was hurt for his defense of allowing children of illegal immigrants to qualify for in-state tuition, and Cain, obviously has been damaged by sexual harassment allegations.
But it’s hard to see how Romney and Gingrich would be co-leaders of the Republican field if it weren’t for their strong debate performances and command of issues.
Romney has, at various points in his career, taken positions conservatives would find objectionable on abortion, immigration and gun control. He supported the Wall Street bailout and his biggest accomplishment as governor of Massachusetts was signing a big government health care law with a smiling Ted Kennedy at his side. That law became the basis for Obamacare.
Gingrich, despite his protestations to the contrary, is the consummate Washington insider, who as The Washington Examiner’s Tim Carney has detailed, has a history of lobbying for big-government policies that benefit large corporations that give him money.
He supported an individual mandate, pushed for the costly Medicare prescription drug plan while taking money from pharmaceutical companies, and recorded a climate change ad with Rep. Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif.
And he nearly ended his campaign earlier this year by charging that House Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan’s Medicare plan was too “radical” during a key moment in the budget debate. This doesn’t even get into Gingrich’s messy personal history.
But what Gingrich and Romney do have going for them is that in debate after debate, they’ve come across as articulate, quick on their feet and fluent in a wide-range of policy issues. And those have proven highly-prized qualities for a Republican electorate eager to defeat President Obama.
Philip Klein is senior editorial writer for The Examiner. He can be reached at [email protected].
