“The divider of the Republican Party is its front-runner, Mitt Romney,” said Daniel Henninger in the Wall Street Journal last week, suggesting Mitt’s failure to set the base of the party on fire has sundered the party in twain. Perhaps. But if the house is divided between the establishment (Romney) and the conservative base (his multiple opposites), that base has also been sundered, by a field of candidates even more lacking than Romney, who have risen, flared briefly, and failed.
If the establishment has failed to rally the conservative base, the base has failed to cohere or define itself, much less produce a coherent or plausible candidate. The base is the problem, more so than Romney. Step back now, and try to see why:
As Romney for some time failed to break the 25 percent level in polls, the perception formed that the other 75 percent comprised a firm wall of voters against him, who could cohere any day around one standard-bearer, if they could only be bothered to try.
But polls showed Romney as the strong second choice of many non-Romney voters, who were themselves widely divided, on a menu of meaningful things.
Tea Partiers object to the power of money, but Gingrich and Santorum were cozy with K Street, and made millions as lobbyists. Perry is a fiscal and social conservative, but his immigration policy was ripped as too liberal.
Perry wants to give the state minimal power; Santorum and Gingrich want to deploy it for what they say are conservative ends. Henninger says Ron Paul and Santorum have the “consistency” he says Romney is lacking, but they are consistent mainly in hewing to extreme (and opposite) stances in domestic and foreign affairs.
Santorum wants to bomb Iran before it goes nuclear; Paul wants to bring the troops home, and do nothing. Santorum wants the state to promote traditional mores (and perhaps to enforce them); Paul is an arch-libertarian who is anti-judgmental.
The fact that all of these can be described as being conservative viewpoints suggests that some of these non-Romneys may have large bones to pick with others, and may have more in common in some ways with Romney than with some in the non-Romney boat.
Last week, some conservatives made efforts at unity, trying to settle on one single leader; others suggested a “fusion” of Santorum and Gingrich, all for the good of the cause.
But it takes a huge ego to even think about running for president; and plans made for A to give in to B for something that C wants really badly seldom appeal much to A.
To win, Santorum needs to take votes from Gingrich, and Gingrich is torn between hurting Romney by giving his votes to Santorum; and looking out for his private ambition, which means fighting Santorum for every last vote.
And, if they could fuse, merge or settle on one single figure, no one could give him a charisma transplant, an eloquence implant, a transfusion of vision, or the je ne sais quoi that adds up to leadership, an ephemeral essence on which the current contenders draw blanks.
If a strong man existed among them, he would have emerged on his own long ago.
The problem for the Republican base is less that it is divided than whom it is divided among, which is five different people unfit to be president. This is their fault, and not that of Romney. Not all of the GOP’s problems can be traced to or blamed upon Romney.
Examiner Columnist Noemie Emery is contributing editor to TheWeekly Standard and author of “Great Expectations: The Troubled Lives of Political Families.”
