GOP primary process faces looming credibility gap
Let me say, first, that I think the Republican primary includes some fascinating, intriguing political figures, who have stretched the dialogue about GOP politics and provoked serious discussion about the nation’s future.
Mitt Romney, Ron Paul, Newt Gingrich, Rick Perry and Rick Santorum all have substantial resumes, and intriguing things to say about American democracy.
But there’s a growing sense within conservative ranks that the Republican primary process is spinning out of control, devolving into more of a reality TV show than a credible way to choose the nation’s next commander in chief.
The latest bump in the road is the decision by conservative news magazine Newsmax to enlist Donald Trump as the moderator of its December 27th debate in Iowa.
That decision drew a scornful response from Paul — arguably the frontrunner in Iowa — who said he won’t attend:
“The selection of a reality television personality to host a presidential debate that voters nationwide will be watching is beneath the office of the Presidency and it flies in the face of that office’s history and dignity.”
The libertarian lawmakers from Texas added this: “Mr. Trump’s participating will contribute to an unwanted circus-like atmosphere.”
Further complicating this circus-like primary season is the fact that so many Republican candidates are themselves primarily media personalities, rather than plausible candidates.
Trump himself flirted with running for the White House, before his flirtation with the “birther” movement unraveled his last vestiges of irony-free credibility.
And journalists have noted for months that several campaigns — those of Newt Gingrich, Michele Bachman, and Herman Cain, in particular — have mingled for-profit book promotions with vote-gathering.
Over the weekend, conservative columnist George Will blasted Cain, claiming that the former pizza mogul had effectively hijacked the process for personal gain.
“[B]oth parties have to do some serious thought as whether they can develop some filter to prevent this process — particularly with mad proliferation of debates — from being hijacked by charlatans, entrepreneurs and entrepreneurial charlatans,” Will said.
In fact, there is little evidence of a comparable problem on the Democratic side, for the simple reason that there isn’t a similar linkage between media self-promotion and politics.
Personalities like Gingrich, Trump and Sarah Palin — often in partnership with AM talk radio and Fox News — have created a kind of revolving door of lucrative punditry, public speaking, and publishing that is new in American politics.
The line between political popularity, ratings, legitimate advocacy and showmanship have blurred dangerously.
So far, that kind of thing hasn’t happened on the Democratic side.
This change reflects the fact that the Republican Party remains deeply wounded, the influence of its leaders largely eclipsed by tea party groups, conservative media executives and independent political organizations.
Indeed, the conservative movement appears on its way to emerging as a kind of loose coalition of powerful groups — each with its own fundraising arm — rather than a coherent, monolothic party.
We’ve seen this here in the North Country, where Republican candidates for the 23rd congressional district have faced devastating challenges from New York’s Conservative Party.
Arguably, there simply aren’t any credible gatekeepers anymore in the GOP, no one with the influence and clout that allows them to vet candidates or police the primary process.
The results can be fascinating and colorful, to be sure. At times, the marital scandals, gaffes, and debate fireworks have been, well, like a reality show.
And at times, the free for all arguably produces interesting results. If there were a party gatekeeper, for example, Newt Gingrich would have almost certainly been bounced from the race months ago.
But as George Will suggested over the weekend, it’s a nervous business when the system for reviewing presidential candidates for one of our two great parties is “hijacked” by figures like Mr. Trump.
What do you think? Too much circus for your taste? Or is this good old fashioned colorful American politics at its best?
Tags: election12, politics
.png)
Trump? Maybe add Kardashian for some extra spice.
“The line between political popularity, ratings, legitimate advocacy and showmanship have blurred dangerously.
So far, that kind of thing hasn’t happened on the Democratic side.”
_
Former NY Gov. David Paterson (D) has a radio show in Albany.
But this is an exception that seems to bolster Brian’s point.
As far as I know, Paterson hasn’t followed Godwin’s Law or similar paths to ad hominem attacks and blatantly self-serving political advocacy.
I’m a Green so I have no objection to the participation of parties and candidates deemed “fringe” by the establishment. The problem I have with the Conservative “Party” here in NYS is that it’s not really a party. It’s merely a faction. It endorses the most conservative Republicans (and sometimes in local races Democrats) but it never runs candidates that actually belong to the party. The Greens, by contrast, actually run registered Greens for offices. I don’t think the Conservatives actually add anything new to the political process here. Ditto the WFP.
Frankly, the circus like atmosphere is facilitated more by the fact that they’re going to have 92 debates before the first vote in the first state is even cast. It doesn’t take long for the candidates to simply repeat what they’ve been saying all along (which was not very substantive to begin with). The process of candidates reading their scripts and the punditocracy telling us what to think about it (before we even have a chance to digest it) barely gets started after one debate when another one happens. The punditocracy is destroying the tiny part of our democracy that hasn’t already been hijacked by corporations and has fundamentally emasculated formerly serious journalism.
“the fact that the Republican Party remains deeply wounded”
Really?
“The punditocracy is destroying the tiny part of our democracy that hasn’t already been hijacked by corporations and has fundamentally emasculated formerly serious journalism.”
Brian, sorry you lost me here. What?
Paul –
Yes, absolutely.
Conservatism writ large is thriving in the US. But the Republican Party as an institution has struggled with leadership snafus, fundraising woes, and with the simple fact that lots of other players (Karl Rove’s organization, Fox News, AM talk radio) are simply more influential.
By contrast, the Democratic Party remains much more in control of its own destiny.
This fact frustrates some liberals, who would love to see a broader network of influential players on the left.
But for the moment, MSNBC and Al Gore just don’t pull the kind of weight that you see with third-party groups on the right…
Brian, NCPR
Brian, With all that said why do you think the republicans are doing so well or are you saying there has been some kind of implosion that has just occurred over the past few years and we will see the result in 2012?
Brain, you don’t think there is a broad network of influential players on the left?
MSNBC is an interesting case. I see now that they have decided to completely throw in the journalistic towel and just start to advertise for particular positions. I see that Chris Matthews has also decided to come clean and give up any objectivity that he use to pretend to have as well. Things on the left seem to be changing.
Credibility with whom? The republican party seems to be going for the “reality challenged” as its base. – a coalition of the poorly educated who don’t believe in science, but do believe in all sorts of nutty ideas. There are a lot of them. They may elect the next president.
Paul, my point was that punditing has increasingly replaced real, serious journalism because it’s a lot cheaper and more predictable. Frankly, it’s also a lot more popular because it’s like sports where viewers pick a team that they follow no matter what. Serious journalism takes a lot longer, often chasing down empty leads without the promise of success and gives results that are usually not nearly as “sexy” as a bunch of big shots bloviating at each other. And even when serious journalism is done, it’s usually buried by the noise of pundits arguing about irrelevant crap.
Punditing is essentially the candy of citizenry and real journalism is the veggies. Punditing used to be the icing on the cake, so to speak but now it’s largely replaced the nutritional stuff. And that’s why our democracy is so ill.
Think of it this way. Two stories were recently revealed: the secret Fed program that spent $7+ TRILLION in bailing out banks (not TARP, which was public and a tiny fraction of that cost) and the most recent allegations against Herman Cain. Which one would you consider more important? Which one got far more play in the media?
Mr. Hahn that in an incredible thing to say. It is simply not fair to lump all Republicans with a few. I woiuldn’t classify all Democrats as dope smoking, baby killers.
Rocky – Im not saying all republicans are like that (reality challenged) but that is now their base. For example – Herman Cain’s 9-9-9. It was very popular with the republican base even though it was generally acknowledged that it didn’t make sense. It was a simple answer to a complicated question. I could go on and on. Global warming? – not happening. Evolution? – just a theory. Free market = good, socialism = bad. (but don’t ask them for the definition of socialism). etc.
Yes, Brian Mann, too much circus. I’ve said this before on this blog, where is the attention for Ron Paul and Jon Huntsman? Huntsman in particular seems like the type of candidate who could claim a large portion of independent voters with his stances on climate change (acknowledgement) and his foreign policy experience. And yet there is little to no backing and almost zero media coverage of his positions, etc. To others’ points, apparently he is not “sexy” or “exciting” enough – I think he simply too progressive to get conservative backing – probably why he’s not being highlighted.
The Republican is just a bunch of noise. Someone wake me up when its over.
The problem with debates, all political debates, is that they aren’t debates.
Or maybe the problem is me in that I would rather see them discuss things, you know, actually talk to each other without some moderator asking questions as though they (the moderator) is a complete idiot.
The format used encourages sound bites and very little substance. Let the candidates interrupt each other. If one could get the other to swear, we might actually get to know what these people are really like.
Paul,
You seem to have forgotten the love affair Chris Matthews had with John McCain in the last election cycle. Matthews, like many in the tv media today kiss politician butt so they will come back on their program.
Fair enough Peter.
“In fact, there is little evidence of a comparable problem on the Democratic side, for the simple reason that there isn’t a similar linkage between media self-promotion and politics.”
Hehe. That’s because liberal talk shows fail.
Ask Ariana how it goes.
Ask Al Gore’s Air America how it goes.
Ask the stooge in Minnesota how it goes.
I actually think JDM’s got a point here, snarky tone aside. There’s just not a conservative “media-industrial complex” in place that pays people to monetize the political process. (There are Democrats who revolving door from politics to lobbying, but that’s a different kettle of fish.)
But I think conservatives are increasingly nervous about their own success. Not only has it caused marginal political figures (Cain, Trump) to jump into the fray, it’s also caused some politicians (Palin, Huckabee) to stay out of the race.
Huckabee and Palin both opted out, in part because they were doing strong business as pundits and talk show hosts. Huckabee’s decision, in particular, may haunt the GOP this year.
–Brian, NCPR
PNElba,
I hear you.
I was describing this crazy tirade that I saw Matthews go on where he was telling us all the things wrong that Obama has done and what he needs to do to fix it. He is nuts.
The county is filled with crazy people. It is also run by some crazy people. At least some of these guys are honest and tell us they are crazy at the outset!
I thought Grover Norquist was the Republican’s “gate keeper”
It’s nice to see the Republicans acting the way the Democrats usually do.
Brian Mann says “…conservatives are increasingly nervous about their own success. Not only has it caused marginal political figures (Cain, Trump)…”
Brian, was it conservative success that brought Herman Cain into the race, or an incredible miscalculation by the Koch brothers? How was “conservative success” responsible?
I would have to agree with the general assessment, the blurring of the line between making money, reality television, self promotion and political office has become blurred by this field.
Who has not done that? The only actual candidates left, Huntsman, Paul, Romney and Santorim. It would be good if this group would boycott the circus as Paul is doing.
Trump. “the Donald”
really?, when pigs fly.
and they called Hillary “polarizing”
Gingrich is the current “not Romney” GOP frontrunner. I can see why conservatives don’t like Romney. Even the least educated of the GOP can see the guy will say anything to get elected. If John Kerry was defeated because he was a flip-flopper, what does that say about Romney.
As for Gingrich, please…if he gets elected I don’t want to hear another word out of the GOP about being the “family party” or the “values party”.
The GOP is a shell of a once great party.
John Kerry was defeated because he was/is creepy!
I don’t have any problem with people changing their minds. I assume that is what Cuomo is doing right now with his “tax restructuring” idea.
If you can’t change your mind there is a chance that you never had one!
Paul,
Are seriously comparing Cuomo changing his mind with the fact that Romney has basically changed nearly every position he has ever held.
What about the proposed extension of the payroll taxcut? Tell me where Willard stands on that issue. First he was supportive of them, then he dismisses them, then he doesn’t want to talk about them, and now he’s back to supporting them. That isn’t changing your mind, that’s pandering.
“Are seriously comparing Cuomo changing his mind with the fact that Romney has basically changed nearly every position he has ever held.”
No, those are your words not mine.
Do you seriously think that Romney has changed “every position he has ever held”?
Has Cuomo changed his mind or is he pandering?
Paul, Sorry, you did not compare Cuomo with Romney.
I don’t know what Cuomo is thinking yet but I believe he is pragmatic and will propose whatever will work. even if that means changing his mind. Also, I’m not sure I’ve ever heard Cuomo say he was against all tax increases. I don’t believe I’ve seen Cuomo blatantly pander to anyone yet. I don’t see him changing his mind for votes. He seems to be popular with Democrats and Republicans.
Yes, I think Romney has changed his mind on the most important political positions he has held in the past. Can you give me an example of a liberal position Willard has held in the past, that he has not changed recently. I’m not saying I blame the guy. If he wants to get the nomination from today’s Repulican Party, he pretty much has to “change his mind”.
Do you think Willard is just changing his mind or is he pandering?
PNElba, Sorry, who is this Willard you are talking about? If I can figure out who it is maybe I can answer the question. Thanks.
Sorry, I thought Republicans knew that Romney’s first name was Willard.
Who said
“I’ve tried to think why it is that he has changed so often — why he finds it so difficult to come down on one side of an issue, instead sort of floats between both issues, both sides of things…. For those who don’t understand how he can be so vacillating, it stems from that fact that he is very conflicted, that he is drawn in two different directions — very powerfully. If he’s with an audience, he wants to identify with and satisfy that audience, and will say what he thinks they want to hear. ”
and who were they talking about?
“Do you think Willard is just changing his mind or is he pandering?”
A bit of both.
Had no idea what his first name was. Thanks.
I don’t think Romney would say anything to get elected. In fact I think he is actually a politician which means he can get some things done, he got things done in Mass. This of course is horrible for the blockheads in the party who are more interested in making a point than helping our country.
i think mitt is willing to say quite a lot! but i agree with mervel about mitt’s record as governor — from everything i’ve heard, it’s one to be proud of. but unfortunately mitt is in a party where insuring hundreds of thousands of people is seen as a liability, not an asset.
Willard may have been successful in Massachusetts because he probably had legislators that were willing to compromise and he held liberal positions back then. He will probably get things done if elected President. Things like attempting to destroy SS and Medicare, increasing defense spending, gutting environmental regulations etc. He will have to attempt to do these things because his far right supporters will not reelect him if he doesn’t. If he does get elected, we can only hope that Democrats use the same tactics being used by Republicans today in the Senate. On the other hand, do we really know where Willard stands on any issue?
In some ways if the Republicans can’t win in this environment it would really change the party. I think it would either spell the end of the tea party influence or it would mean the party will become a 3rd tier political actor breaking up into smaller bands.
But I don’t think that will happen, the lure of winning will overrule adherence to doctrine, thus the party would probably return to its more moderate roots.
Right now the internal Republican talking point is hey we tried a moderate he got smoked, when we put up hardcore conservatives they win. We have had only two, two term Republican Presidents since the 1950’s if you don’t count Nixon, both on the conservative end of the Party. Ford lost, Dole lost, McCain lost, Bush Senior lost, all of them relatively moderate Republicans.